Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Caborn: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of nuclear artillery in British Army tactical planning.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): The role of the British Army's nuclear capable artillery is to contribute to NATO's overall strategy of deterrence and flexible response.

Mr. Caborn: I thank the Minister for his reply, but will he tell us why that announcement was not made to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on 24 October, when it was clearly said that no decisions had been made? However, in the Senate, Dr. Wagner, the Assistant Secretary for Defence, announced in its official journal that NATO had agreed that the 155mm and the 8-inch shells should be converted to nuclear use. Why was that information not given to the House when the Minister had the opportunity to do so on 24 October?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman did not take my answer. He is talking about procurement aspects, which should be dealt with in answer to a question that follows almost immediately. His question related to the role of nuclear artillery in British Army tactical planning, and the answer that I have given him is an answer that has endured throughout this Government's and previous Government's view of these matters.

Mr. Ashdown: Is not the real role for this nuclear artillery, stationed so close to the front-line in Germay, to provide Britain and NATO with a chance to use nuclear weapons first in the case of a conventional attack? Is not that policy not only morally disreputable but militarily dangerous, in the sense that it places local commanders in a position whereby they must either use those nuclear weapons or risk losing them during an attack?

Mr. Stanley: The rationale of having nuclear capable artillery is to provide a deterrent against the use of the heavy nuclear capable artillery asset which the Warsaw Pact has potentially available for use against us.

RAF Molesworth

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now state the total cost of the Molesworth operation; and what was the number of personnel involved.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I can give an answer as it applies to my Ministry. Three hundred Ministry of Defence police were engaged in clearing the site of trespassers; 1,500 Army personnel were engaged in the erection of a temporary fence and other facilities.
The cost of Army stores used in this latter operation was about £1 million. Other costs, including those of the temporary buildings on site, other equipment and the erection of the permanent fence are likely to total £5·5 million.

Mr. Skinner: I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Defence included himself among that number. Does he realise that he cut a sorry sight as he pranced about at Molesworth in an Army flak jacket, especially since, when he was in the real Army, he hated wearing the apparel so much that he got himself out as quickly as he could? The exercise was carried out all because he wanted to remove a few peaceful protestors, Quakers and a white goat.

Mr. Heseltine: I must concede one point to the hon. Gentleman. I took what trouble I could to plan that exercise, but I made one miscalculation. I forgot to take a coat with me and it was raining.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that money spent to restrain unrepresentative groups who are trying to disrupt the Queen's peace and to change our policy for keeping the peace is money well spent?

Mr. Heseltine: When my hon. Friend talked about money spent on restraining unrepresentative groups which threaten the peace, I thought that he might be talking about the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It would certainly be money well spent in that case. I support completely what my hon. Friend said. Had we not carried out that exercise, there could have been incalculable additional costs, which were avoided because the exercise was so successful.

Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Secretary of State tell us what United States National Guardsmen are doing in this country? Are they being used to train people to deal with civil disobedience at Molesworth and elsewhere? Will he explain why Ministry of Defence officials were called to the American embassy—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should read the question carefully. It deals with the cost of the Molesworih operation and has nothing to do with American guardsmen.

Mrs. Clwyd: The question also asks about the number of personnel involved, Mr. Speaker. My question was related to that.

Mr. Heseltine: I can help the hon. Lady. If she looks at the briefing notes for the last Labour Government she will find exactly what American personnel are doing here on our nuclear bases.

Dr. Mawhinney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Mayor of Peterborough, with Labour and Liberal


councillors, are conniving to hand over council property to CND, which will use it to advise Molesworth protesters how to evade and to break the law? Does my right hon. Friend accept that although that is typical of the bodies referred to, it is not accepted by my—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that that question has much to do with the original question either.

Mr. O'Neill: Is the Secretary of State aware that by donning a flak jacket he achieved what the emperor achieved by taking off his clothes? We can see as a result what a pathetic exercise it was. That the Secretary of State had a role in planning the exercise says a lot about the way in which his mind works and the way in which the Government approach such matters.

Mr. Heseltine: I am sorry to be boring, but I did want to keep dry. That is why I put on a flak jacket.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Has the Secretary of State had an opportunity since he last made a statement to the House on the issue to assess the cost benefit of the exercise? On reflection, what was the purpose of the expenditure? Was it not to depress dissent, as the Wintex exercise which starts today will attempt to do?

Mr. Heseltine: The Wintex exercise is designed to preserve the credibility of our deterrent and therefore to maintain the peace. I can help the hon. Gentleman about the cost-effectiveness of the Molesworth exercise. It ensured that the large numbers of people living in that area were not subjected to harassment by those who were illegally operating on Ministry of Defence land. It denied the opportunity for continued occupation and for the frustration of the Government's legitimate right, and it secured the enhancement of the Government's policy to maintain NATO's policies because those policies have secured peace. That is a peace which the protesters are only too happy to enjoy because within it they can further their protest.

Sir John Fieldhouse (Reports)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what alterations were made to Sir John Fieldhouse's Commander-in-Chief's report on the Falklands war at the Ministry of Defence or at Northwood; which were made with Sir John's knowledge and consent; and on whose authority the remainder were made.

Mr. Heseltine: As with all official reports, the Commander-in-Chief's dispatch went through more than one draft. I can assure the hon. Member that the sentence dealing with the detection of the General Belgrano in the dispatch as published was unchanged throughout the drafting process. Any amendments that were suggested on other matters were agreed personally by the Commander-in-Chief.

Mr. Dalyell: Why should it be believed that it was for intelligence considerations that Sir John Fieldhouse's report did not state in the first place that the submarine was detected on 1 May? If there were intelligence considerations Sir John Fieldhouse would never have put in the first draft the true answer that it was detected on 1 May. Surely Sir John understands intelligence as much as anybody else?

Mr. Heseltine: Sir John would undoubtedly fully understand all the implications of the exercise in which he

was, of course, intimately involved. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) seeks to establish that the Ministry tried in some way to change Sir John Fieldhouse's draft against Sir John's wishes. That is not the case. There is no foundation for that suggestion, and I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman continues to pursue the matter.

Mr. Yeo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the majority of the British people understand clearly why the Belgrano was sunk and believe that the time of my right hon. Friend, his colleagues and staff would be far better spent in preparing Britain's defences against external enemies than in answering fruitless inquiries about this obscure historical incident?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is in touch with the mood of the British people and with the mood of the House, but I have to respect the rights of hon. Members to ask questions such as that asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), however daft they may be.

RAF Basic Trainer

Mr. Beggs: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has made any changes in the specifications for the Royal Air Force basic trainer.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): No, Sir.

Mr. Beggs: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that in December his colleague the Minister of State for Defence Procurement selected the Short's Tucano and the PC-9 for best and final offers because both met the specifications?

Mr. Lee: I certainly can confirm that.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend, in making the selection with his right hon. Friends, place a high priority on the degree to which each of the contenders approaches the specifications set by the RAF? Which one came best in the evaluation at the aeroplance and armament experimental establishment at Boscombe Down?

Mr. Lee: I can give my hon. Friend an assurance on the first part of his question, but I am not prepared to be drawn on the second.

Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Boyes: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the modernisation of Britain's tactical nuclear weapons.

Mr. McTaggart: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the modernisation of Britain's nuclear weapons.

Mr. Clay: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement regarding the acquisition by North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces of new nuclear artillery shells.

Mr. Stott: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department is considering the modernisation of the Army's nuclear artillery shells.

Mr. Lee: Nuclear shells for artillery deployed in support of the Alliance by the United Kingdom and other NATO countries are provided by the United States of America. NATO Ministers have identified a range of


possible improvements and SACEUR is undertaking a review, but no specific proposals have been made. As for British theatre nuclear weapons, no early decisions are likely or required, although it is normal practice to keep under review the need to replace all United Kingdom in-service weapon systems.

Mr. Boyes: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler) informed my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that our United States allies were not considering improving the artillery shells that are deployed? However, Bernard Rogers, when speaking to a sub-committee of the United States Senate, made it absolutely clear that he wanted massive improvements to and refinements of the 155 mm shells to allow those shells to take an enhanced radiation warhead. Is it not a fact that that weapon will be more dangerous than the weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? About 200,000 people died in a year in those cities. How many will die if we start using these types of artillery shells?

Mr. Lee: General Rogers is entitled to express his views. In March SACEUR's formal review will report to the nuclear planning group on the composition and improvements of the nuclear stockpile in the longer term. The matter of the enhanced radiation or neutron weapon is for the Alliance to consider at the highest political level. No proposals have been made. There are no so such rounds in Europe.

Mr. McTaggart: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that any modernisation of British nuclear weapons, irrespective of the reason for that modernisation, represents an escalation in the arms race, which is against the wishes of the vast majority of the people? Is that why conflicting statements have been made to the House of Commons and to the United States Congress?

Mr. Lee: I do not accept the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I draw the attention of the House to an article last week in the New Statesman, which stated:
The Soviet Union is also modernising its short-range nuclear forces with a new nuclear mortar artillery and three new surface-to-surface missiles in a classic example of the arms race.

Mr. Clay: Is it not a fact that on 1 May 1984 Dr. Wagner told the United States Congress that he had a list of improvements? He referred specifically to the 155 mm artillery shell and the 8 in shell. He said that NATO Ministers endorsed all the proposals. Does that not directly contradict the answer given both earlier and later to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and others of my hon. Friends? Is this possibly another case where a civil servant was asked to produce two different briefs—one that told the truth and one that misled the House—and we received the one that misled the House?

Mr. Lee: I cannot comment on the first aspect, because Dr. Wagner is not a United Kingdom citizen—he is a United States citizen. I cannot comment on specific United States plans, although I repeat that there are no specific NATO proposals. We are awaiting the SACEUR review.

Sir Patrick Wall: Will my right hon. Friend purchase the Copperhead laser-guided I55mm shell? If not, why not, given the fact that recently it scored 10 hits out of 10?

Mr. Lee: With respect, I cannot answer that question, and I shall write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Marlow: Is it not a little absurd that we should have a balance of deterrence in nuclear weapons which we continually update, whereas we do not have a balance of deterrence in chemical weapons?

Mr. Lee: The Government's position on chemical weapons is well known. There has been no change.

Dr. Hampson: Does my hon. Friend agree that even a defensive alliance such as NATO must continue to modernise at every level if it is to retain its credibility? Has not the Warsaw Pact recently moved new heavy artillery nuclear brigades into the forward area?

Mr. Lee: The answer to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question is yes. I agree that we must modernise our deterrent. It must be continually reviewed if it is to be effective.

Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that public opinion within the Alliance is looking, not for the modernisation of tactical nuclear weapons, but for less reliance on their use? Does he agree that the first and perhaps most pressing condition of that now is adequate sustainability at a mundane level such as 30-day stock levels of ammunition, spare parts and petrol? Will he assure the House that he and his colleagues are meeting SACEUR's anxieties on that matter.

Mr. Lee: Sustainability is very much in our minds. I do not wish to be precise on specific days of reserve requirements, for obvious reasons.

Mr. McNamara: Is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary aware that when his colleague the Minister of State wrote to me about the FH70 he gave me a categorical assurance that it had no nuclear role? However, before the House on the Hill a statement was made by Administration officials. They said:
NATO has expressed an interest in modernising nuclear artillery. Specifically, the British, Germans and Italians are concerned that their modern FH70 Cannon under development will be nuclear-capable.
Will the Minister put the House right on that point? Do we envisage the weapon having a nuclear role? Has it a nuclear capability, because that point is important to many Opposition Members? Secondly, in view of the fact—

Hon. Members: Too long.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interruptions take up time. Come on.

Mr. McNamara: Secondly, as the United States armed forces are developing a forward artillery ammunition supply vehicle which is capable of supplying nuclear weaponry to that howitzer, will the Minister give an undertaking that we will not practise with such supply weapons in the future?

Mr. Lee: There is plainly some confusion about that weapon, and therefore in all fairness I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and give him the precise position on it.

Cyprus

Mr. Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the future of the sovereign bases in Cyprus.

Mr. Stanley: The sovereign base areas in Cyprus are an important British defence asset. I expect them to remain so.

Mr. Johnston: Is not the concept of sovereign bases now anachronistic? If there was a notional contribution to the stability of the area, was its credibility not completely destroyed by the failure of the United Kingdom to take any action when the invasion of Cyprus by its NATO ally Turkey took place?

Mr. Stanley: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is a dangerous moment to suggest that the concept of sovereignty somehow becomes anachronistic. The base is sovereign British territory as laid down in the 1960 treaty. It has the full rights of sovereignty that we associate with the use of that word.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the sovereign base areas are among the few places where Turkish and Greek Cypriots are working and living happily together? Secondly, will he confirm that the sovereign bases are used to supply the UN peacekeeping force not just in Cyprus but in southern Lebanon, that Britain supplies the largest national element in that peacekeeping force based on the sovereign bases, and that the sovereign bases play an important part?

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am glad to confirm both the points that he raised. It is the case that one of the social benefits of our use of the sovereign base areas is that we employ approximately 3,400 locally-employed civilians and, as my hon. Friend says, they come from both communities. I also confirm what my hon. Friend said about the importance of the logistical back-up that we provide from the sovereign base areas both to the United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus and to the United Nations force in the Lebanon.

NATO Nuclear Planning Group

Mr. Nellist: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear planning group in March.

Mr. Heseltine: The nuclear planning group will meet on 26 and 27 March in Luxembourg. This is one in a series of bi-annual meetings of NATO Defence Ministers, the purpose of which is to discuss nuclear matters within the Alliance.

Mr. Nellist: Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity at that meeting in March—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] The right hon. Gentleman reads the answers, I am reading the questions. Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity in March to take positive steps to withdraw battlefield nuclear weapons and to ensure that no plans are put forward for the introduction of artillery shells that are capable of transformation into advanced radiation weapons, which are more commonly known outside the Chamber as the ideal capitalist bomb, the neutron bomb?

Mr. Heseltine: As the hon. Member will remember, the neutron bomb was an idea supported by the last Labour Government. We have no plans for the introduction of such a weapon. When I am asked about nuclear weapons of every range, I reply that I shall go on with the policies pursued by the last Labour Government because I believe that they work. They maintain the peace, and I can see no argument for abandoning those policies.

Mr. Forth: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the people of this country expect any responsible Government

to ensure adequate defence for themselves and their allies, and they congratulate him on his continued efforts in this regard and expect him to continue to do just that?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right, and that is the principal reason why we can assure the Labour party that it will remain in opposition for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State give some sign, particularly to the people of my constituency, of when he will raise the upgrading of Pitreavie with his NATO partners, because we are extremely anxious about this particular deliberation? There is a story in The Scotsman today, which perhaps the Secretary of State will catch up on, which says that we shall duplicate Northwood at Pitreavie. What will the cost of that operation be? How much NATO finance will be involved? If the right hon. Gentleman does not have an answer, perhaps he will write to me.

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I have not seen The Scotsman today — an omission that rarely happens during the course of the day. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on those points.

Mr. Denzil Davies: What general matters will be discussed in the nuclear planning group in March? Hon. Members on both sides of the House are becoming fed up with getting different accounts from the Government and from the United States Congress. This is a real problem, and I hope that the Secretary of State appreciates it. How shall we get proposals in March on the modernisation of these weapons? Will the Government say clearly to the Americans that they have no intention of allowing nuclear shells to be used for the FH70 howitzer?

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman, who clearly follows these matters, will remember that NATO has taken a decision to see how far it can reduce its short-range nuclear weapons. The principal item that we shall have to deal with in the forthcoming meeting, the agenda of which has not been finalised, is the scale to which we can carry out the Montebello decision to reduce the number of short-range nuclear weapons. In that process, we shall have to discuss which of the remaining capabilities have to be modernised. That is obviously a dual decision. How far we shall make progress, I cannot anticipate.

South Korea

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many British troops are currently stationed in South Korea.

Mr. Stanley: The United Kingdom currently contributes a detachment of 34 to the United Nations honour guard in Seoul. A further six personnel are serving with the Commonwealth liaison mission, including the commander, who is also the British defence attaché.

Mr. Canavan: Why, almost a third of a century after a destructive and divisive war, have we even a token British military presence in effect supporting a Right-wing regime which has a deplorable human rights record? Why are the British Government actively supporting the presence of 40,000 American troops, and American nuclear weapons, just a few hundred miles from the Russian and Chinese borders? Is that not a provocative presence that could be a grave impediment to the peaceful reunification of Korea?

Mr. Stanley: As for the British armed services detachment, the hon. Member is wrong in his concept of that detachment. It is there to discharge a commitment to the United Nations. I should have thought the hon. Member would support that commitment. Its duties are principally ceremonial, but it also has some security duties relating to the British embassy in Seoul.

RAF Molesworth

Dr Mawhinney: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many service men are currently based at RAF Molesworth.

Mr. Heseltine: The Army personnel have largely withdrawn, their task successfully completed, and the site is now guarded by Ministry of Defence police. There remains a small and variable number of service men, both RAF and Army, with responsibilities for command, control, communications and other support to the Ministry of Defence police.

Dr. Mawhinney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he may have to increase the number of personnel? The Mayor of Peterborough, in conjunction with Labour and Liberal councillors, is conniving to make available city council property to CND so that it can advise protesters at Molesworth about how to evade and break the law. Will my right hon. Friend accept that while this is typical of the bodies mentioned, it is rejected by the majority of my constituents, who are both law-abiding and supportive of the Government's policies?

Mr. Heseltine: I thank my hon. Friend for giving me such conspicuous notice of the question that he intended to ask. It is quite obvious that the gain of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) is the loss of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney). I have no doubt at all that the overwhelming majority of the British people will share my hon. Friend's fury that those who seek to frustrate the will of the majority of the people and Government of this country impose an unwarrantable burden upon the ratepayers of individual constituencies, whose support for those people is no more than that of this House.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Has the Secretary of State considered the ill-timing of the Molesworth operation, which could have a detrimental effect upon the talks between the United States of America and the USSR, which at long last are under way?

Mr. Heseltine: I hope that the hon. Gentleman shares the assumption that the return of the Soviet Union to the negotiating table, from which it walked away, came about because the Western powers remained resolute about the maintenance of their own defence and deterrence. It is precisely because we have remained resolute that the Soviet Union, against the advice of the Opposition and of all the peace groups who tried to frustrate the majority Governments of the West, has now been forced back to the conference table.

Mr. Leigh: Has my right hon. Friend seen the latest pamphlet from CND, which asks its supporters
if they wish or do not wish to take part in civil disobedience"?
Now that the CND is condemned out of its own mouth for inciting people to break the law, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that his troops and the police should continue to keep the real peace at Molesworth?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has paid a great deal of attention to these matters. He is absolutely right. He can be assured that we shall pursue whatever policies are necessary for the maintenance of peace. The publications of CND are not required reading in the Ministry of Defence, unlike The Scotsman. However, we must accept that in a free society there are those who will give all manner of curious advice to constituents. What is so surprising is that the Opposition, who are supposed to believe in law and order, apparently support these actions.

Mr. McNamara: Will the Secretary of State explain to the House that the reason why he is no longer reading CND publications is perhaps because he is now listening in to or reading transcripts of telephone conversations which his Department authorised so that it could obtain political information about non-subversives, which would serve the political interests of the Conservative party and which the security forces could use for that purpose?

Mr. Heseltine: That is an argument that might appeal to the Opposition, but the real reason why I no longer bother to read CND publications is that I found something from the 1930s which contained all the same arguments and which proved to be wholly ill-founded.

Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Woodall: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning United Kingdom battlefield nuclear weapons.

Mr. Stanley: Battlefield nuclear weapons operated by United Kingdom forces consist of the Lance missiles and nuclear capable artillery in service with the British Army in Germany. The nuclear warheads for those weapons are provided by the United States.

Mr. Woodall: Will the Minister accept that that will be a disappointing reply to many people in Britain who are completely opposed to any kind of nuclear weapons? Will he press his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to obtain an option of no first use of those weapons when he goes to NATO?

Mr. Stanley: I am surprised at what the hon. Gentleman says, because the particular weapon systems to which I referred were all in service at the time of the Labour Government.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will any statement that is made include reference to the Government's position in opposing the activities of CND by phone-tapping in so far as the Department treats it as an enemy of the state? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that Parliament has a right to know and that we should have a full statement? Will he ensure that the Secretary of State comes to the Dispatch Box to make that statement?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I find it difficult to relate that question to question 16.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Minister now reply to the serious point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), when he asked him to ensure that in future there will be no discrepancy between statements made in the House, such as the answer given to me on 7 June 1984, and statements made previously in Congress?

Mr. Stanley: I do not think that I can add to the answers given on that question previously.

Defence Land (Disposal)

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the disposal of defence lands.

Mr. Lee: It is the policy of the Ministry of Defence to dispose of land and buildings that are no longer required for defence purposes.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister accept that the Ministry of Defence acquired large areas of land in Britain during the first and second world wars and has been reluctant to give up that land ever since, despite the fact that the Nugent committee report in the 1970s recommended that a great deal of land should be released? In particular, much of the northern Pennines, which are no longer used for military purposes, are still not available for public use.

Mr. Lee: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's first point. Since 1973, when the Nugent committee reported, we have disposed of about 50,000 acres of land — 7·6 per cent. of the total. That has produced receipts of nearly £400 million. A further 6,000 acres are with the PSA for disposal. We allow as much public access for recreational purposes as other priorities allow and co-operate closely with the national park authorities.

Mr. MacKenzie: How many acres of land are held by the Ministry in Gibraltar? Is that land required for defence purposes? If not, will he ensure that it is handed over to the civilian population of Gibraltar as soon as possible in order that that part of the country may be economically viable?

Mr. Lee: The right hon. Gentleman and I were at the Gibraltar heritage conference earlier this morning. The Ministry of Defence has played its full part in releasing whatever land and buildings it can to help Gibraltar develop, particularly its tourism, and, obviously, we are reviewing other areas. We are anxious to help, but I must make it clear that Gibraltar has a substantial continuing strategic and military role.

Trident

Mr. Soames: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received since his most recent announcement of the revised cost of the Trident system.

Mr. Heseltine: Since I announced the revised Trident estimate on 29 January 1985, at column 135, I have received some 60 letters.

Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that until such time as there is a substantial agreement on verifiable multilateral disarmament, the United Kingdom must retain an independent and indestructible nuclear deterrent? Will he confirm to the House that that is his intention?

Mr. Heseltine: I can confirm that it is our intention to maintain the irreducible minimum nuclear deterrent in partnership with our conventional forces. It is self-evident that those policies have worked in maintaining the peace, and we intend to continue them.

Mr. Strang: Has the Secretary of State noticed the growing opposition to Trident within the British

establishment — within senior military circles and the Tory party? Will he at least admit to the House this afternoon that on the basis of yesterday's dollar-sterling rate Trident will cost more than £10,000 million and that more than half of that will be spent on American jobs and technology?

Mr. Heseltine: The House is familiar with the proportion of expenditure across the Atlantic, but the House will also know that the bills for Trident will not begin to mount significantly until later in the decade and it is the exchange rate that prevails at that time, not the current exchange rate, that will determine the final cost. The overall policy will not be changed because of that. It is our belief that we must modernise our independent nuclear deterrent and we intend to do that with the Trident D5 programme. It will be my responsibility, and that of my successors, to fit that into the defence budget.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Has my right hon. Friend received any representations that would make him change his mind about his statements to the House that Trident will not have a deleterious effect upon the conventional procurement budget?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will realise that all budgets are a matter of the allocation of priorities. He will be aware that the Government have increased the defence budget in real terms by £3,000 million a year and that at its peak Trident will be only a fraction of that enhanced capability.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Does the Secretary of State recall that when the Prime Minister first heard from President Reagan about his nuclear defence in space initiative, her initial response was that it would render Trident useless by 1995? How does the right hon. Gentleman view the position? If space defence against nuclear weapons is possible, what will that do to Trident?

Mr. Heseltine: I think that the hon. Gentleman is slightly confused in his analysis. There is no question of SDI rendering Trident out of date. The issue would be seriously considered only if SDI were to be deployed and if that was coincidental with the ownership of SDI by hostile parties — two extremely questionable assumptions.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The Secretary of State clearly hopes that he will not be around when the bills for Trident begin to come in. Is he aware—I am sure that he is—that since the last defence Estimates the cost of Trident has risen by £1,000 million merely because of the fall in the exchange rate? Is he further aware that studies in the United States show that almost every major American defence budget has cost a great deal more than the original estimates because the estimates are deliberately played down to get funding and approval from Congress? Are not Trident's costs totally out of control? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not admit that if he goes ahead with Trident it will mean massive cuts in conventional defence and massive damage to our contribution to NATO?

Mr. Heseltine: Bearing in mind the damage to our contribution to NATO — the policy upon which the Opposition forced the last election — I find it extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman has the nerve to raise the issue in the House. This Government believe, as the previous Labour Government believed, that an


independent British nuclear deterrent is an essential part of our policy to maintain peace. Unlike the Opposition, we are determined to see our policy through.

RAF Molesworth

Mr. Bruce: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how much he anticipates spending to maintain security at RAF Molesworth up to the arrival of cruise missiles.

Mr. Pike: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated annual cost of security at the Molesworth base.

Mr. Heseltine: Missiles will not be delivered to RAF Molesworth until about 1988 and in the meantime the security operation will be such as to ensure that the construction programme is completed on time. It is too soon to say what this operation will eventually have cost.

Mr. Bruce: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the cost is likely to be substantial, and that it is a rather distressing cost? Is it not the right time to recognise that he should freeze expenditure on and deployment of nuclear weapons to ensure progress in the nuclear disarmament talks?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman does not appear to have caught up with the news. The Soviet Union has been modernising its intermediate range weapons for a considerable period of time—far longer than the West. It has now come back to the conference table in no large measure because the West is determined to maintain its deterrent, against the advice of the Opposition.

Mr. Pike: Would not the Secretary of State do better to save expense on the security of Molesworth by recognising that the majority of people do not believe that Britain should have cruise? Should we not take into account the fact that the United States would use cruise if it was threatened but this country was not threatened? The matter is completely controlled by the United States and, if put to the test, there is no doubt that it would use cruise.

Mr. Heseltine: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman reject so firmly the policy upon which all Labour Governments since the war have relied. The only consequence of not proceeding as we did at Molesworth would have been to inflict a quite unwarranted burden on the citizens of Molesworth and the surrounding areas, who would have been obstructed — legally and illegally — by supporters of the policies in which the hon. Gentleman believes, at immense cost to the ratepayer and the taxpayer.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend intend to install a weld-mesh fence around Molesworth, as he has agreed should be installed at RAF Greenham Common, and when will the later be installed?

Mr. Heseltine: No one knows better than my hon. Friend the consequences of not proceeding with the dispatch that the Government showed at Molesworth, because my hon. Friend has had to suffer, on behalf of his constituents, the intolerable behaviour that has surrounded Greenham Common. We are now proceeding with the installation of a weld-mesh fence at Molesworth, and I have before me plans to consider such an operation at Greenham Common.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Forth: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Forth: In accepting our congratulations on the outstanding success of her recent visit to America — [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is very limited time for Prime Minister's questions.

Mr. Forth: —will my right hon. Friend confirm that she agrees with President Reagan that, for the European currencies to estabish a correct relationship with the dollar, it will be essential for the European countries to move towards American labour laws — [Interruption.] — American labour mobility, social security and attitudes to work?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for the first part of that supplementary question. Part of the strength of the dollar is due, of course, to the great strength of the American economy — particularly in the matters to which my hon. Friend refers — to the much lower public expenditure, the much better labour laws and, as the President said during his press conference, the fact that when it came to job creation it was individual workers, business people and entrepreneurs—not the Government—who created virtually every one of the 7 million, new jobs in the past two years.

Dr. Owen: As the sterling trade weighted index has fallen to a record low, will the Government now accept the advice of the Governor of the Bank of England and, more importantly, of the CBI, and join the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS?

The Prime Minister: In the last day the dollar has reached a record high against sterling, against the French franc and the lira, and it has reached the highest figure for over 13 years against the deutschmark and for 10 years against the Swiss franc. All of that has occurred in the last day. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, joining the EMS would not help in the surge of the dollar against all European currencies. Nor would it mean that we would not have to apply some of the many financial disciplines. It would mean, I am afraid, that we should have less freedom of action to control our own monetary conditions.

Sir William Clark: Has my right hon Friend noticed that over a third of the employees of British Telecom have agreed to take part in the share option scheme in that company? Does she agree that that is proof positive that the ordinary person in this country wishes to belong to a capital-owning democracy?

The Prime Minister: Yes. The British Telecom share issue, which was the largest to be conducted on either side of the Atlantic, has been a great success, particularly for the 2 million people who purchased shares and for the people who work in BT. It is a success of capitalism in that it has spread genuine ownership more widely among our people.

Mr. James Lamond: As the Prime Minister is fond of lecturing us along the lines that the customer is always right and that if we have the right goods at the right price we shall be able to sell them, why does she continually complain that the customers who are buying dollars are mistaken in the value that they put on the pound?

The Prime Minister: I have just indicated that part of the strength of the dollar lies in the strength of the American economy, particularly in things which the hon. Gentleman would not like and would not be able to do. The other part arises from the high deficit and the high interest rates. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman would want our interest rates to be even higher.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26th February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Stokes: In view of the large number of letters from special interest groups which my right hon. and hon. Friends receive constantly, will my right hon. Friend confirm that we here represent the whole nation and not sections of it?

The Prime Minister: I am aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends receive many letters. Of course, every group has the right to make its own representations. The Government have the duty to assess all the demands and their effect on the taxpayer. That is what we must do and we must represent the will of the majority.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister recall telling us last June that it was not right for the EC to raise a loan for budgetary purposes? If she still feels that, how does she explain the Government's recent decision to extend additional overdraft facilities to the Common Market, in view of the fact that in the last six months she has already made advance payments of £285 million to the EEC? Can she tell us how much the current overdraft will be and what conditions she has put on it?

The Prime Minister: In view of the Parliament's decision about the budget, the only way for the EC to carry on is to have a budget this year of one twelfth of what the budget was for last year. As that has not been enough to meet outgoings, particularly on some of the agricultural commitments, the monthly amounts have been brought forward and there are facilities to enable the EC to continue. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would wish it to be totally and utterly disrupted. That would give cause for great concern to our own people.

Mr. Kinnock: After Fontainebleau last year we were told that there was a new machinery that would iron out all the difficulties and that it was largely attributable to the negotiating genius of the Prime Minister. Can the right hon. Lady now answer these questions: how much is the overdraft, what are the conditions on it and does it not mean that we are paying for our own rebate?

The Prime Minister: No. The rebate this year will eventually come, as did the rebate for last year. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that he thought the rebate for last year would not come, but it did come. The new regime cannot come into operation until details are laid before the House. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that it is not

due to come into operation until 1 January 1986 and that all the orders must come before this House for approval first.

Mr. Tim Smith: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that today's strike action by teachers constitutes a grave dereliction of duty? Does it not further damage the reputation of the teaching profession and its claim to put first and foremost the interests of Britain's schoolchildren?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. For teachers to pursue a pay claim at the expense of children in their care seems to us to be totally and utterly wrong.

Mr. Gould: Does the Prime Minister recall that when I wrote to her a month ago I asked what her response would be if, after interest rates had been raised to crisis level, the downward pressure on the pound continued? Would she care to answer that question now? Are there to be yet higher interest rates, or do we have to live both with the plunging pound and with record interest rates, which have failed to do their job?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will have heard my reply to the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). The hon. Gentleman tries to ignore half of the situation. Over the last day the dollar has reached a record high against almost all European currencies. Over the past month sterling has appreciated against all major currencies except the yen and the dollar. He knows full well that interest rates are designed to maintain strict monetary conditions. He is well aware also that it would be singularly unhelpful for me to answer any questions about future interest rates or intervention. He knows that that would be unhelpful. He knows that it would be totally wrong for me to do so and, therefore, my answer to him is no.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: I welcome the announcement that was made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development of a further gift of 30,000 tonnes of grain to the Sudan. However, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the famine is by no means conquered and that much more aid will be necessary before the harvest in the autumn?

The Prime Minister: I am aware that my hon. Friend has recently returned from the Sudan. I am grateful to him for welcoming the action taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, who was there at about the same time. The action that we have taken for the Sudan means that our aid to that country has reached about £13 million since the onset of the damaging drought conditions. We shall bear in mind the great privations that those in the Sudan are suffering, as well as what we are doing for Ethiopia. Many refugees are coming into the Sudan from Ethiopia. I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome to the Government's action.

Mr. Tom Clarke: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Clarke: Is the Prime Minister aware that, notwithstanding the interruptions of her right hon. and hon. Friends a few moments ago in response to a supplementary question about the teachers' strike, parents are deeply worried about the current teachers' dispute, specifically in Scotland? Will she agree to an independent pay review, which seems to be a fair way of settling the problem? Does she accept that parents are worried because they do not want to see the same intransigence on the teachers' dispute as the Prime Minister has shown over the miners' strike and other industrial issues?

The Prime Minister: The teachers' pay claim is a minimum flate rate increase of £1,200 per teacher, which would cost about £600 million. All of that money would have to come from other taxpayers, other parts of education or other parts of the Government system. Teachers' pay has kept pace with inflation since 1979. The employers have offered them arbitration and they have refused. I see no reason for an independent inquiry.

Mr. Pawsey: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Pawsey: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity of reading the forecast made yesterday by the London Business School, which says that the economy will grow by 3½ per cent? Will she say what impact that growth will have on employment, industry and exports?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct. The latest economic forecasts show optimism about growth in 1985. This follows on 1984 when, in spite of the miners' strike, we had growth of 2½ per cent. In spite of the miners' strike, output rose. Employment rose by about 342,000 in the year to September 1984. Investment reached an all-time record. An optimistic forecast on top of that good record is excellent news.

Mr. Wareing: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wareing: Did the Prime Minister warn President Reagan, on her visit to America, that the overwhelming majority of the British people would regard any direct intervention or any proxy intervention by America in Nicaragua as a danger to world peace? Did she warn him that there would be no support from her Government because the British people realise that the support that is being sent to the Contras is contrary to all the interests of those in the Western world?

The Prime Minister: I made it perfectly clear that we and the Americans firmly support the Contadora process and will continue to do so.

Mr. Sayeed: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the proposition that it is better to lend to the EEC than to borrow from the IMF?

The Prime Minister: Yes. My hon. Friend makes his own point in his question.

Mr. Frank Cook: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cook: Bearing in mind that the Prime Minister has established herself very firmly in the minds of the populace, and even some sections of the media, as history's greatest misleader of the nation, will she choose to explain to the House today how she can ask Americans to stop supporting insurgents in Northern Ireland and yet, at the same time, give succour and support, directly and indirectly, to the Contras in Nicaragua to undermine a democratically elected Government?

The Prime Minister: In reply to the hon. Gentleman's very carefully rehearsed question, I repeat that I had occasion to thank both President Reagan and Speaker Tip O'Neill and Members of Congress for the way in which they have done everything to stop funding coming from the United States of America to aid terrorism in Northern Ireland. I also made it perfectly clear, as I have repeated, that we stand firmly for the Contadora process. To add one little thing — which the hon. Gentleman is so anxious that I should do—we regard those democratic elections to which the hon. Gentleman has referred as actually flawed in the run-up to the election, for reasons which my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has given many times.

Prime Minister (Washington Visit)

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the visit which I paid to the United States from 19 to 21 February, accompanied by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
In the course of my visit I delivered an address to a joint meeting of the United States Congress. I had a meeting with President Reagan and meetings with eight members of the United States Cabinet and with other senior members of the Administration, as well as with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. I also met leading members of the Senate and House of Representatives.
My colleagues and I were guests at a luncheon at the White House and the President and Mrs. Reagan came to a dinner at the British Embassy to mark the 200th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and the United States.
The principal themes discussed in my talks with the President and other members of the Administration were East-West relations and arms control, economic issues and the middle east.
On East-West relations and arms control, we agreed that the West's objective in the negotiations which will open in Geneva on 12 March should be a sizeable and verifiable reduction in nuclear weapons, which would allow us to maintain security at a lower level of weaponry and at lower cost.
In our discussions on the strategic defence initiative we reaffirmed the four points agreed during my visit to Camp David in December; and, in particular, that research, as permitted under the anti-ballistic missile treaty, should go ahead, but that eventual deployment of a defensive system in space would be a matter for negotiation under the terms of tha treaty. I expressed the hope that British scientists would be associated with research into the strategic defence initiative.
In our discussion of economic issues I explained the concern in Europe at the continued rise of the United States dollar against other currencies. I found this concern widely shared within the United States Administration, not least because of the adverse effect on its own agricultural and manufacturing industries, but it was recognised that no easy remedy existed. The President and I agreed that the best contribution the United States could make to a long-term solution lay in a reduction of its budget deficit. The President has put specific proposals to Congress to this end. I argued strongly against protectionist measures as a way of dealing with the trade effects of the high dollar on the United States economy. I was assured that the Administration were not contemplating such measures.
On the middle east, the President and I both felt that the time was propitious for fresh efforts to arrive at a solution of the Arab-Israel problem. We both expressed our support for King Hussein's endeavours to arrive at a common position among moderate Arab Governments and I welcomed the result of King Fand's recent visit to Washington. The President confirmed that his proposals of September 1982 remained on the table and that the Administration were ready to pursue them with the parties.
Our talks also dealt with central America; with co-operation against terrorism; and with Northern Ireland—

where I thanked the President and members of Congress for their efforts to discourage the donation of funds to organisations which promote and sustain violence. In addition, I raised a number of bilateral issues, in particular the case for more American purchases of British defence equipment and the matter of unitary taxation.
The visit enabled my right hon. Friends and me to convey the British point of view on current issues, as well as the extent of Europe's contribution to the NATO Alliance and Britain's particular contribution to the defence of Western interests worldwide.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I commend the directness of the Prime Minister's statements in Congress and elsewhere in her condemnation of fund raising for terrorists in Northern Ireland, and also commend her refusal to endorse the American Administration's policy of so dangerously acting in central America in order to undermine and overthrow the democratically elected Government in Nicaragua?
Does the right hon. Lady recall saying in the Guildhall last November that there was an urgent need for negotiations between the superpowers
because of the dangers of war and because we are on the verge of new technologies in space which would cost so much to develop"?
Why has the right hon. Lady done a complete U-turn and shown such pathetic haste to fall in behind the star wars initiative, when it can add absolutely nothing to movements towards peace, negotiations on disarmament or to more effective deterrence against war on this planet?
Does the right hon. Lady agree that the recent bout of speculation against the pound and other currencies was sparked off by the ill-timed comments of President Reagan at last Thursday's press conference? Is it not the case that the Prime Minister built up expectations that she could, with flattery and fawning, persuade the President to bail out the pound, and that her complete failure to do so is a direct reason for the current collapse of sterling? Will she now tell us what she intends to do to arrest the fall in the currency, with all its terrible consequences for interest rates and for import prices for Britain? Or, alternatively, is she just going to sit back helplessly and hopelessly and watch the pound shrivel to below the level of the dollar?

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his initial comment about the importance of not allowing moneys to get through to the IRA in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the strategic defence initiative. He will, I imagine, have observed that the Soviet Union is already well on the way to research and is, I believe, ahead of us in laser research and electronic pulse beams. It is also already ahead of the West in having an anti-satellite capability and in having experience of the anti-ballistic missile system around Moscow, which has been there for 20 years, and in having experience of updating it. It is absolutely vital for the United States to engage in research in order to catch up with the Soviet Union, to ensure that nuclear deterrence remains balanced, and to make absolutely certain that the Soviet Union does not leap ahead of us in research on anti-ballistic missile weapons when the United States is not doing any.
Therefore, right from the start, I supported President Reagan's initiative on strategic defence. I supported research right from the start — [Interruption.] I supported research on the strategic defence initiative right from the start. Right back in 1977 we were well aware that


the Soviet Union was ahead in lasers and electronic pulse beams, and we wondered why the United States did not embark on a programme to catch up. Therefore, we fully support that research programme. It is absolutely vital for balance between the Soviet Union and the United States. As President Reagan made perfectly clear in his statements and as was made perfectly clear at Geneva, if, as a result of that research, weapons were deployed, their deployment would come within the anti-ballistic missile treaty of 1972 and would have to be negotiated properly, as it would be, so that the balance and the deterrence would be maintained.
I understand that Opposition Members are not worried about keeping a balance between the Soviet Union and the West. The Government are anxious about that and anxious to maintain the effectiveness of the deterrent. The work is to enhance, not to diminish, the deterrent.
Regarding sterling, the right hon. Gentleman seemed utterly to ignore the fact that the dollar has surged against all European currencies, including the yen and the Swiss franc, and has reached a record high. However, the right hon. Gentleman conveniently chooses to ignore that. During the past month sterling has appreciated against all the major currencies except the yen and the dollar.
Only two actions can be taken against a surge of currency, and they are limited. One can engage in joint intervention on a small scale compared with the enormous sums involved. It has been done under the Williamsburg agreement, but it can be done only in a way which makes speculators hesitate. It is not a prolonged exercise, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. The other weapon is interest rates. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is urging that they should rise or fall.

Mr. Julian Amery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, far from being a slap in the face to her, President Reagan's comments after her visit were a confirmation of what she has been saying during the past six years, that is, that the high rate of the dollar encourages our exports and acts as a tariff barrier against American imports, and that American interest rates are not all that high? The President was saying what she had been saying for a long time—that it is time for us to reorganise our economy so that we can compete in a world where no central bank intervention can possible succeed in balancing the currencies.

The Prime Minister: I do not believe that there is any action which the G5 countries could have taken to stop the surge of the American dollar on the scale that we have witnessed. I agree that there are three possible explanations. One is the strength, free enterprise and enterprising nature of the American economy, which means that Americans do not cast all their cares on the Government. As President Reagan said, the 7 million jobs created during the past two years were all created by the American people, not by the Government. The second explanation is the size of the deficit and the interest rates necessary to finance it. That is undoubtedly having an effect on the rate of the dollar. The third explanation is the speculators who have been piling in. That is where intervention can sometimes help, if it happens on the right occasion and if it is done in a co-ordinated way.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that many members of Congress were surprised at her enthusiasm for the strategic

defence initiative, as they are deeply divided on the issue, and many of them feel that priority should be given to seeking a worldwide agreement on banning all nuclear weapons from outer space? I endorse her view that the time may be propitious for a solution to the Arab-Israel conflict, but what specific plans has she to support the initiative taken by King Hussein, King Fahd and President Mubarak? When the Prime Minister left the United States, President Reagan said of the weakness of sterling that each country should stand on its own two feet. Did those words have a familiar ring about them?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the strategic defence initiative, the right hon. Gentleman says that some members of Congress were surprised. I can say only that they showed their appreciation in a very welcome way with prolonged applause throughout the speech and at the end. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not observe that or that he chooses to ignore it.
With regard to weapons, only a certain amount of testing is allowed under the anti-ballistic missile treaty. The deployment of weapons would have to be negotiated under the anti-ballistic missile treaty, which is a treaty without a terminal date. The President has made it clear that the deployment of such weapons, if it came to that, would be negotiated under that treaty.
With regard to fresh efforts on the middle east, the President's speech of September 1982 still stands. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman recalls that speech, which was very welcome at the time. Of course, one is doing everything possible to support King Hussein in the welcome efforts that he is making to contribute to a settlement of the Arab-Israeli problem.

Mr. Dennis Walters: When discussing the middle east with the President, was my right hon. Friend able to persuade him of the urgent need to launch a major initiative now which responds positively to the appeals of King Hussein and which is prepared to deal firmly, if necessary, with Israeli intransigence?

The Prime Minister: I have made it clear that President Reagan said that his speech of 1982 and the plan that it laid out is still on the table, but fresh efforts will be made to try to further the approach that he indicated then. It is important that we should know exactly how far the Palestinian Council and the Palestinian people accept some of the proposals put forward by King Hussein. The position on that is not yet fully clear.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Bearing in mind the fluctuations in the dollar-sterling rate, not just in the past few days but during the past four years, does the right hon. Lady agree that the decline from $2·40 to almost parity in that period shows that the abolition of exchange controls was a dreadful mistake?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the past four years. Since 1979, the dollar has appreciated against sterling by 95 per cent., against the deutschmark by 80 per cent. and against the French franc by 140 per cent. May I point out that the French franc is exchange-controlled.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: In her wide-ranging and farsighted address to both Houses of Congress, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred appropriately to the union of mind and purpose between the British and American peoples. Since from our long historical


experience the most important symbol of such unity is the unity of currencies, and since we may be approaching an opportunity that may not recur — parity between the pound and the dollar — will my right hon. Friend consider the consequences, which might be most interesting, of declaring the dollar to be legal currency in the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: I see no prospect of unity of currencies. The answer to the latter half of his question is that the possibility does not exist.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Prime Minister aware that when in that speech she expressed friendship with the United States she spoke for most people in Britain and that when, in the same speech, she expressed bitter, vindictive hostility against the Soviet Union, she spoke only for herself and the stupid, simple-minded Right-wing members of the Conservative party?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have read the speech fully. I quoted from Mr. Brezhnev in that speech. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman thought those words were mine, but they were not.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present problem of currencies is not so much a matter for Europe or Britain? Does not the problem rest in the hands of Americans, because they are the ones who find that their farmers are going bankrupt and that their industry is unable to export? If we keep our nerve, the balance of currencies will return, because America must live in the real world in the end, as we found after the pound went too high in the 1980s.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the question to which so many right hon. and hon. Members have referred was one from the American press asking the President whether he intended to intervene because of the bad effect that the high dollar was having on agriculture and manufacturing industries. The President indicated—as I understand, because he did not say so—that he did not think that intervention except under the Williamsburg agreement would be likely to occur. I believe that the Williamsburg agreement, which involves joint intervention, is still operative and could therefore have some effect against speculators.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Does the Prime Minister think that it was wise to criticise a friendly Commonwealth Government just to receive the plaudits of the United States, particularly since that Commonwealth Prime Minister is visiting the United Kingdom this week? Will she ever understand that, however much she licks the boots of President Reagan he and his Government will go their own way and not take a blind bit of notice of what she says to them?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman refers to the decision by New Zealand not to accept ships at her ports if New Zealand thinks that they have nuclear weapons on board. I have made it clear, and shall continue to make it clear wherever I am in the world, that British Navy ships are seconded to NATO. We believe in NATO, even if the Opposition would like to destroy it. So long as we believe in NATO and our ships are seconded to NATO, we cannot reveal what weapons they carry. I therefore repeat for the

hon. Gentleman's benefit that I have no intention of saying which ships — or whether our ships — carry nuclear weapons. That is my duty to keep faith with the NATO agreement.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the success of her visit will be seen widely as having much strengthened the Anglo-American alliance and that that is welcome by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends? My right hon. Friend has expressed support for the SDI research programme. Why was she so cautious and why did she not go on to support the eventual deployment of these weapons, because they, with the antiballistic missile treaty, would make the world a much safer place?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The purpose is to cement the fundamental alliance between Great Britain and the United States and between the English speaking peoples of the world. It is too early to conclude what might come out of the SDI programme. It will take many years to develop and we shall during that time have to rely solely on the nuclear deterrent. When we know what will come out of it, the United States will have to negotiate under the anti-ballistic missile treaty. In several years time we shall be in a better position to judge the effect of research.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Did the Prime Minister have an opportunity during her discussions with President Reagan to express appreciation of the contribution which American investment makes to job creation in Northern Ireland? Was she given any reason to believe that there would be further American investment to help to provide jobs for young people and so wean them away from paramilitary organisations and to help to speed progress towards normality?

The Prime Minister: One has to take advantage of the high dollar in two respects. First, it encourages exports to the United States from all parts of the United Kingdom, and a number of companies are taking advantage of that. Secondly, it is a very good time for inward investment into this country from the United States. That will be encouraged.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the massive deficit in the United States, its huge defence spending, the boom in imports and the boom in foreign deposits are more important factors than some other factors to do with United States' economic tradition and internal behaviour such as labour mobility? In that context, and bearing in mind what the President unfortunately said at the press conference, surely it behoves us to look after our interests in Europe more, for example, by joining the EMS as a full member, by defending ourselves and by putting more pressure on the Americans to adopt a more internationalist monetary policy?

The Prime Minister: I believe, and the Americans believe, that the fundamental strength of the American economy is the underlying enterprise culture of the American people. They go for self-reliance and success. People, not the Government, create jobs, as the President said in his statement at that press conference to which my hon. Friend referred. The Americans have a much less rigid labour market. Many more small businesses are


starting up in the United States than in Britain. That underlying difference is the fundamental strength of the American economy.
My hon. Friend is aware that the dollar has surged against all European currencies. It is at a record high. Therefore, to join the EMS would make no difference. It would inhibit some of our present freedom of action.

Mr. John Hume: Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the Northern Ireland problem was one of the subjects discussed with President Reagan? Apart from the subject of cutting off the flow of funds to the IRA, were any other aspects of the Northern Ireland problem discussed? Did President Reagan make any other positive offers of assistance to resolve that problem?

The Prime Minister: No, nor would I expect him to do so. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the United States purchases a number of export products from Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman will have seen my comments that a dialogue continues between this Government and Mr. Garret FitzGerald's Government in the Republic of Ireland with a view to achieving peace and stability in Northern Ireland.

Viscount Cranborne: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the increasing interest shown by the United States Administration and by representatives on Capitol hill in the subject of Afghanistan, especially humanitarian aid in that country? Did my right hon. Friend have an opportunity to discuss that matter with the President of the United States?

The Prime Minister: We did not discuss in detail the position of Afghanistan. We pursued the subject of trying to persuade the Soviet Union to withdraw from Afghanistan to leave that country to determine its own future.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Does the Prime Minister really not understand that, once the massive technological and industrial base for the research and development of star wars has been established over the next 20 or 30 years, it will be impossible to abandon the project—because of the effect on jobs in the American economy or to abandon the negotiations on the project?

The Prime Minister: It is vital to ascertain through research exactly what can be achieved. As I have said, the Soviet Union was already well ahead with certain types of research. For the Soviet Union to have gone ahead and to have had a system that would stop nuclear missiles, and, in that way, stop the nuclear deterrent, and for the United States to have done nothing would have upset the balance upon which our security ultimately depends.

Mr. Tim Yeo: During my right hon. Friend's visit to Washington, did she have the chance to observe the contribution made by small businesses in the United States towards the creation of jobs? Will my right hon. Friend lend the full weight of her authority to the efforts in this country to remove bureaucratic and other obstacles to the development of new businesses?

The Prime Minister: We had considerable discussions on this subject with the President and the Commerce and Treasury Secretaries. An outstanding feature of the American economy is the fact that the jobs created have come from small business and the numbers employed by big manufacturing business are decreasing. It is, therefore,

vital to secure in this country that same enterprise culture that enables these new small businesses to come into existence. We must examine the possibility of reducing the number of regulations so that it is easier to start up businesses here than it is.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Did President Reagan, Secretary Shultz or any other senior American approve of the fact that the right hon. Lady did not negotiate on the Falklands?

The Prime Minister: No one said anything to the contrary to me. I made my position very clear, and it is very different from that of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. James Hill: I thoroughly agree with my right hon. Friend on SDI. Indeed, early-day motion 404, which was signed by myself and several of my and right hon. and hon. Friends, is totally in line with her view. Did my right hon. Friend obtain an understanding from President Reagan on NASA that there would be a sharing of research work? Will that mean more job opportunities? If so, will my right hon. Friend spell this out loudly and clearly so that the Opposition doubters will see in this move the defence not only of this country but of the whole of Europe and understand the need in the distant future to destroy nuclear stores? This will mean the eventual protection of everyone and technology transfers with the USSR.

The Prime Minister: With regard to the SDI, Secretary Weinberger is anxious that other European countries should join the research effort. It is my belief that we shall not be the only country that offers to do so. It is important that we do so that we can keep up with the latest technological developments in a sphere in which we would otherwise have no opportunity to engage.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: As the Prime Minister did not just return from Washington empty handed with regard to economic policy, but, worse than that, we now have a record low against the trade-weighted index of all currencies, will she take further steps now to stop the disruption and distortion to world trade caused by the economic policy being followed in Washington? Will she reconsider her reply that the only answer to the problem is united action in Europe with our partners in the European Community, and consider entry into the European monetary system?

The Prime Minister: I have said over and over again that all the currencies in the European monetary system are also at record lows against the dollar. The EMS does not protect one from a surge by the dollar. Most countries have gone down on the trade-weighted index because of the strength of the dollar. The same factor is affecting us all.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to take into account the fact that we have a heavy day ahead of us. [Interruption] Order. Hon. Members should listen to what I have to say I propose to allow questions to continue for a further 15 minutes, during which time I hope that every hon. Member who is now standing will be called.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Perhaps the Prime Minister will answer the question that I asked her before she went to Washington. When she talks about the dollar being dominant in world currency markets and tries to


explain that all currencies are suffering, why is the trade-weighted index at an all-time low today? Is she aware that any British citizen who wants to buy Italian currency will have to pay a premium on the forward exchange markets to get hold of it? It is the first time that that has happened in the 30 years that the Prime Minister has been in the House. If that is the case, what success has she brought back from Washington, especially when we take into account that she has spent in total £2 million of taxpayers' money on gallivanting around the world.

The Prime Minister: With regard to the real part of the hon. Gentleman's question on the trade-weighted index, the dollar is of course 25 per cent. of that index and therefore most currencies are much lower than they were. He tries to say that other countries have not suffered. Since 1979, the dollar has appreciated against sterling by 95 per cent., against the deutschmark by 80 per cent., against the French franc by 146 per cent., the lira by 153 per cent. and the Swiss franc by 68 per cent.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: I welcome the strategic defence initiative announced by my right hon. Friend and our participation in it, but did she take the opportunity to raise with the President during her discussions the serious problem posed to co-operation in high-tech industries between our countries by American claims to legislate for other countries extraterritorially in contravention of their sovereignty and in breach of international law?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That matter has been pursued many times. It was pursued on this occasion with regard to the anti-trust legislation and unitary taxation. Both matters were raised.

Mr. Greville Janner: When the Prime Minister refers to the President's speech in 1982 as still standing and being welcome, is she aware that it was welcomed by one side only? If there is to be peace in that area, there must be consent on both sides. While Israel is only one nation among many, it is the only democratic nation in that area, and it is one side of the argument. Its interests, which the Prime Minister did not mention, are entitled to be recognised.

The Prime Minister: As the hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware, that speech fully recognised, as have other statements since and all statements from this Government, the right to security of all states in the area. That has never been in doubt. That speech also set out a course of action for the future under which the West Bank may become a part of a federated Jordan. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will welcome a settlement of the problems in that area which fully recognises not just Israel's right to exist, but to exist behind secure borders.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most people in this country believe that her statement to both Houses of Congress was an important re-statement of the special cultural, historical, economic and security interests linking our two countries? Will she bear in mind that those people in the House and outside who are wholehearted supporters of the Government's economic policy are not indifferent to this country's exchange rate and believe that more can be done on a

European basis to correct the problem, more adequately to reflect this country's assets and interests by a more realistic exchange rate?

The Prime Minister: Only two things can be done about an exchange rate, and both of them to a limited extent. The first is interest rates. My hon. Friend will be well aware that we took action here, but the purpose of interest rates is not to defend a specific exchange rate, but to hold a strict monetary policy. The other thing is intervention under the G5 arrangement. At first it appeared to have stopped the surge of the dollar, but there is so much money moving around the world from non-residents and leads and lags on trade that intervention could not regularly stop the surge of the dollar. It can come in from time to time to make it uncertain for the speculator.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the right hon. Lady aware how humiliating it is for this country for her to go to Washington and to act as a kind of echo of President Reagan? She should perhaps be reminded that this country is not a satellite. Is she aware that there is a great deal of admiration for the way in which New Zealand is standing up to the pressures of the United States? One would have expected her to try to understand that point of view instead of once again simply carrying out President Reagan's wishes?

The Prime Minister: We go to the United States as allies in NATO. I believe that most people in this country, if not the hon. Gentleman or the Opposition, are grateful to the United States for keeping 300,000 troops on the central front in Europe. They help to maintain, among other things, this country's right to freedom, justice and democracy. With regard to the Nicaraguan point, I repeat that we and the United States Government share a common—

Mr. Winnick: I said New Zealand.

The Prime Minister: I am sorry, did the hon. Gentleman say New Zealand? I have already fully answered about New Zealand. We shall not reveal which of our ships is carrying nuclear weapons.

Mr. James Couchman: When my right hon. Friend offered British co-operation and the co-operation of scientists with the SDI was she aware how appropriate that was, coming as it did within a few days of the 50th anniversary of the invention of radar by my kinsman, Sir Robert Watson-Watt, a defence system which has been crucially important over the past 50 years and continues to be so?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think the United States fully appreciates this country's excellence in research and also its inventive genius. It is pleased that we have offered to help in the SDI research programme.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: When the Prime Minister did her "Garret FitzGerald and I" party piece in Congress, was she implying that his support would run to the pitiless killing, within a few hours, of an Irish schoolboy by British soldiers, or is she quite indifferent to the political consequences of an intensification of the shoot-to-kill policy in the north of Ireland to the position of Dr. FitzGerald in the south and to constitutional nationalism in the north of Ireland?

The Prime Minister: I believe that Dr. Garret FitzGerald and I take exactly the same view about terrorism and the IRA. Let me make my view clear. I am grateful to our security forces and the police in Northern Ireland for the excellent way in which they do everything to protect the citizens of that country.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Did my right hon. Friend tell the President that employment in the United Kingdom is rising? Does she agree that much more emphasis should be placed on the advantages of the more competitive pound, and that a sharply falling dollar would have disastrous consequences for the world economy?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I pointed out that employment in the British economy is rising, as my hon. Friend knows. In the year to last September, the numbers employed rose by about 340,000. However, that rise did not have an impact on the unemployment register because many married women came into jobs. Therefore, the number of jobs is rising but the number of unemployed is not falling.
With regard to my hon. Friend's other point, a number of people who are worried about the surge of the dollar would also be worried if it suddenly turned and sharply fell. Both would have disastrous consequences on certain parts of our economy.

Mr. Terry Davis: If the Prime Minister attributes the strength of the dollar to the underlying strength of the American economy, how can she deny that the weakness of the pound is due to the underlying weakness of the British economy after six years of Conservative Government?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman takes that view, he will also take the view that the Japanese, German and Swiss economies are weak. That is not so, and I am not prepared to call weak an economy that, in spite of a coal strike, grew by 2·5 per cent., has record output and investment and an increase of employment.

Mr. David Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a widespread welcome for the emphasis given to the middle east question? She has twice referred to the President's speech in 1982, which was then an initiative. Does she agree that what we want now is not an old initiative but a new one, and would she consider stressing that point in further talks with the President?

The Prime Minister: Probably one of the most important things to try to establish is whether the Palestinian people will accept security council resolution 242 as modified by resolution 338. If it is acceptable to the Palestinian people as a whole, that opens the way to further negotiations through the most excellent offices of King Hussein.

Mr. Martin Redmond: Will the Prime Minister answer a question that is puzzling the House? Did President Reagan feed her any Pal meat when she was in America?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry, I did not hear. Will the hon. Gentleman kindly repeat his question?

Mr. Redmond: Did President Reagan feed the right hon. Lady any Pal meat?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry that I asked the hon. Gentleman to repeat his question. It was not worth answering, nor taking up the time of the House.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I recognise the great mutual benefits that would ensue from joint research on the SDI between the United States and the United Kingdom. However, did my right hon. Friend endorse the foreign policy and security implications behind the SDI, that is, that an effective space-based defence, rather than diminishing deterrence, would improve and enhance it?

The Prime Minister: The United States makes it clear that embarking upon this programme will enhance deterrence, as my hon. Friend has said, and not reduce it.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Prime Minister concede that it is trifle embarrassing to watch the so-called Iron Lady casting herself, like a simpering teenager with a crush, on a B-grade actor who short changes her $1·033 to the pound. Will she stop praising the United States economy and telling us what benefits it has, and do something to enhance our economy by building up the manufacturing base and stopping our capital and monetary assets flowing to the United States?

The Prime Minister: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question showed more of his mind than of mine. That is absurd and ridiculous. I have great admiration for the United States economy, which has had the ability, over the past 20 years, to create the number of jobs that have been created there, as the President said, not by the action of Government but by the action of the people, against a financial and regulated framework that has reduced the number of regulations and the amount of taxation. There are drawbacks. One of the reasons for the high dollar is the deficit and the high interest rates required, even with all the advantages of the United States economy, to draw in money from the rest of the world. The President has sent proposals to Congress to try to deal with the deficit, and set the aim of a balanced budget during his last state of the union speech.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: Did my right hon. Friend have time to discuss Trident and the possibility of increased offset opportunities to benefit the United Kingdom aerospace industry?

The Prime Minister: I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence had particular discussions, and I mentioned to the President the need to purchase more British equipment. I mentioned a number of orders that we have in mind that would be of great benefit to some of our companies.

Mr. Kinnock: At Christmas time, the right hon. Lady let it be known that President Reagan had told her that he would intervene to stop the rise of the dollar. What has happened since? Why, in the intervening period, has the President chosen to let her down so badly? As to the answers that she gave on star wars, she asserted in the past half hour that the Soviet Union is producing an effective defence against the Western deterrent. If that is the case, why is she spending vast sums of money on Trident to make additions to that deterrent arsenal? In view of the fall in the pound, how much extra will the Trident missile cost?

The Prime Minister: With regard to intervention, that was agreed under the Williamsburg economic summit under certain specific conditions.

Mr. Kinnock: Camp David.

The Prime Minister: The Camp David summit dealt almost exclusively with the SDI and one or two other things, but not so much with the economic aspect. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the G5 meeting which took place later in Washington, and from which there was a communiqué—

Mr. Denis Healey: What about the new agreement?

The Prime Minister: I am answering the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), not the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).
I think that the right hon. Member for Islwyn is referring to the G5 arrangement agreed among the G5 countries later in Washington, which was set out in a communiqué. If the right hon. Gentleman does not think that it was, he can find the communiqué.

Mr. Healey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister, somewhat to my surprise, referred to what I said. I was simply reminding my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) that the Prime Minister, after her return from Washington in December, said that there was a great new agreement, but it simply repeated the earlier agreement, on joint intervention to prevent the rise of the dollar. My right hon. Friend was asking the Prime Minister why the President of the United States has now ditched her.

The Prime Minister: I repeat what the facts are, Mr. President—[Laughter.]—Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have all done it.

Mr. Healey: The right hon. Lady did it.

The Prime Minister: The facts are that first it was agreed under the Williamsburg summit in June 1983 that in certain circumstances there could be co-ordinated intervention. That was repeated at the G5 meeting in Washington, which took place well after Christmas. There has been a certain amount of intervention, as has already been announced and as the right hon. Gentleman knows. The amount of intervention cannot deal fully with the sums of money that are being moved about the world, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, both by non-residents and also by the leads and lags in trade. At any rate, this Government have not had to go to the International Monetary Fund, as happened under the previous Labour Government.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When answering a question from one of her hon. Friends I believe that the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House. I am sure that she would not want a misleading answer to remain on the record. In answer to a question about her discussions with President Reagan regarding unemployment, in this country and an increase in employment the Prime Minister said that she told President Reagan that although employment in this country increased last year by 300,000 it had not made any impact upon unemployment because—I believe that this is the misleading part of her answer—large numbers of married women came on to the register. That is clearly not the case. The Prime Minister is creating the impression that the increase in unemployment last year was due almost entirely to married women coming on to the register. I am sure that the Prime Minister would not want such a misleading answer to remain on the record.

Mr. Speaker: I believe that that point of order comes into the category of trying to extend Question Time. Since the Prime Minister has been charged with giving an incorrect answer, however, perhaps she would like to answer it.

Mrs. Thatcher: Those jobs, Mr. Speaker, were not filled from the unemployment register. If they had been filled from the unemployed register the number of unemployed would have fallen. I believe that a considerable number of married women going back to work was a factor.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Given that the question asked by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) went on for two minutes but seemed to go on for much longer, given also that during the three quarters of an hour of questions on the Prime Minister's statement a large amount of the time was taken up by questions from right hon. and hon. Members on the Front Benches, in order to protect the rights of Back Benchers I wonder whether, Mr. Speaker, you would consider extending questions on the Statement for a further five minutes, since there are only about half a dozen more hon. Members who wish to ask questions?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot do that, in fairness to a Standing Order No. 10 application, a ten-minute Bill and those who wish to take part in the subsequent debate. I try to look after the interests of Back Benchers and to include as many as possible. Because of the importance of the statement, I have allowed questions on it to continue for rather longer than I would normally allow.

Law Centres, Vauxhall

Mr. Stuart Holland: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the imminent closure of law centres in the Vauxhall constituency.
The matter is specific because it affects two law centres in my constituency. It is urgent because one of them, the Stockwell and Clapham law centre, has already received notice of no further funding from the end of March of this year. It is important because of the manner in which Ministers have changed their policy on law centre funding and have acted without due notice or warning. For instance, the Lord Chancellor in a letter to Lord Elwyn-Jones dated 19 November 1984 said that the Government acknowledged the part to be played by law centres in the provision of legal services where this suited local circumstances. He fully appreciated that law centres are now seen as playing an important part in the provision of advisory services.
The Lord Chancellor's Department, in a letter to Simon Hillyard of the Law Society dated 20 November 1984, said that after the abolition of the Greater London council, Government policy is to provide traditional support for London boroughs to help individual local authorities to take on support for purely local organisations or projects. It is envisaged that this scheme covering law centres will be separate from, and additional to, the normal urban programme arrangements, but that the criteria for support should be broadly similar.
In its 34th annual report published in January 1985, the Legal Aid Advisory Committee made two significant recommendations in paragraph 441. The first was that law centres should be treated as an essential part of the national network of legal services. As the committee put it, the Government
should take on responsibility for their core funding and the basis of that funding should be sufficiently assured to allow law centres to pursue viable recruitment and staffing policies and to promote long term planning.
Its second recommendation was that the first priority should be to ensure the survival of existing law centres without waiting upon the aftermath of changes in local government and urban programme policy to see what support borough and district councils choose to provide.
In a letter dated 10 January 1984 to the Confederation of Law Centres, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), said:
I also appreciate the points you make about the particular uncertainties which have faced law centres given relatively short term support under the urban programme while longer term policy is discussed between Departments. However, these

discussions are in fact continuing and until they are complete I do not foresee our being able to grant approvals of more than two years duration.
I stress, Mr. Speaker, the emphasis upon two years' duration. It is not a matter of two weeks or six weeks. Yet in a letter to Mr. Barry O'Keefe, chairman of the management committee of the north Lambeth law centre dated 20 February, 1985, the Under-Secretary stated that he was afraid that advice-giving projects such as the north Lambeth law centre were not a partnership priority and that he had therefore decided not to review the law centre's funding any further. The—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make the speech that he would make if his application were to be granted.

Mr. Holland: I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that there should be a debate on the Adjournment of the House on law centre closures since this is a matter of concern not only to my own constituents but to others. Such law centres carry an enormous work load. They deal with thousands of cases every year. None of the cases which such law centres carry concerning education, immigration, social security or employment are eligible for legal aid. Therefore, this is an urgent matter. Within six weeks, there will be people whose cases are now being handled by such law centres who will have nobody to represent them in courts or in tribunals.
In his report on the disorders in Lambeth, Lord Scarman urged that resources to the boroughs should be increased in order to prevent an explosion of protests on the streets. Ministers at first respected this recommendation, but those who are now responsible for the inner city partnership claim that the law centres, at six weeks' notice, should go to their local authorities for funding.
I feel that I hardly need to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that yesterday the House debated the rate capping of specific councils such as Lambeth. This poses an intolerable "Catch-22" dilemma for local councils. If Lambeth were to support the law centres it would risk breaking the law by exceeding the rate capping limits. If the law centres are closed, no Minister and no hon. Member should be surprised if people take the law into their own hands. This is an urgent matter, Mr. Speaker, and the House should, in my view, debate it now.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the imminent closure of law centres in the Vauxhall constituency.
I have listened with care to the hon. Member, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Constitutional Reform (Scotland)

Mr. John Home Robertson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for formal public consultation in Scotland on the subject of constitutional reform by a committee of members of the House of Commons; to provide for a report to Parliament on the outcome of such consultation; and for connected purposes.
This task could most appropriately be carried out by a sub-committee of the Scottish Grand Committee, which would accurately reflect the opinions of the Scottish electorate.
I raise this matter today, Mr. Speaker, because this week will bring the sixth anniversary of the referendum in which Scottish voters gave a majority of 77,435 for the establishment of the Scottish Assembly. That referendum was followed almost immediately by the 1979 general election, and the incoming Tory Government refused to implement the Scotland Act, in spite of the referendum result. The Act was repealed in 1979, despite the fact that at that stage 49 of Scotland's 71 Members of Parliament were committed to the establishment of a Scottish legislature. The corresponding figure in this present Parliament is 51 out of 72 Scottish Members of Parliament committed to some degree of Scottish home rule. But what have we got? We have a completely unrepresentative, pseudo-colonial administration in the Scottish Office and a Secretary of State for Scotland in constant conflict with practically any group in Scotland that anyone cares to mention, whether it be doctors, pensioners, teachers, miners, ratepayers or elected local authorities of all political persuasions. One only has to name them and he is in conflict with them.
Under those circumstances the Secretary of State has had to rely increasingly on repressive powers imposed directly from Whitehall. The House has rubber-stamped a series of measures of that nature in recent years. Indeed, Scotland has often been the guinea pig for the Government's extensions of central control. Remote government is bad government. Scotland has been subjected to legislative changes, which have been at best irrelevant and at worse damaging. The Secretary of State is neither willing nor able to take appropriate action to deal with the problems that are supposed to come within his responsibility.
Let me take just one example. I doubt very much whether a Scottish Assembly would have allowed the present teachers' dispute to develop into the harmful confrontation that is now hitting Scottish schools.
The situation is dangerous. The Government's failure to respect democratic principles in Scotland is bringing the constitution into disrepute. That state of affairs can only play into the hands of nationalists who want to break up the United Kingdom. Or rather, it might play into their hands if they were not so obsessed with their party's internal structure.
There are 21 Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament, including the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) who thinks that he is the Secretary of State for Scotland. They claim to be looking after Scottish interests in the Government but there is some doubt about their ability to do that. I call to mind a certain prominent Conservative in Scottish local government who said that Scottish Tory Members of Parliament have a special

relationship with the Prime Minister. He claims that if she were to tell them to go and jump in the lake, most of them would not even hesitate to take off their trousers.
But some Tories have acknowledged the need for constitutional reform. I shall refrain from saying anything that might embarrass the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, or the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), the Minister of State, Department of Energy, and far be it from me to draw attention to the promise made by Lord Home of the Hirsel that a Conservative Government would introduce a better devolution scheme to supersede the Scotland Act 1978.
But I must say something about the Tory manifesto of 1983 because, contrary to popular belief, that mentioned Scotland once in the context of a reference to the European sheepmeat regime. Some of us feel that that was an extremely appropriate forecast of the effectiveness of the present Administration in the Scottish Office.
But there was also a specifically Scottish Tory election manifesto which included a paragraph that might interest the House. It said:
We remain willing to consider further changes to improve the government of Scotland within the United Kingdom.
There it is in black and white. That manifesto commitment should allow Tory Members, as well as the rest of us, to support my Bill this afternoon.
Scottish Members can, must and will use every opportunity at our disposal to press the case for the constitutional reform that Scotland wants and needs. Members for my constituency of East Lothian have been on that track for a long time, starting with the famous Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun in the 18th century. My immediate predecessor, John Mackintosh, contributed a lot to the debate. I make no bones about the fact that my greatest ambition is to be able to take a seat in the Scottish Assembly and I am confident that I shall be able to do so at some time.
But in political terms we recognise that the only practical way of getting a Scottish Assembly is to elect a Labour Government here at Westminster. The next Labour Government will be committed to legislate on devolution. We are determined to make our proposals fully understood and to have them agreed in advance. There must be no grounds for confusion or obstruction next time round. We are seeking the fullest understanding with colleagues from other parts of Britain and the Labour party is launching a process of consultation on our revised devolution proposals in Scotland.
We have already published a Green Paper setting out Labour's plan for a Scottish Assembly with certain economic and revenue-raising powers as well as a range of powers already devolved to the Scottish Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) will seek to introduce a Bill next Tuesday to highlight those proposals. Scottish Labour Members of Parliament will be starting that formal consultation process in Scotland in the near future. I urge the House to endorse this eminently reasonable procedure by giving me leave to introduce the Bill today.

.35 pm

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman seek to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Fairbairn: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Shame.

Mr. Fairbairn: It may be a shame for a Scottish nationalist to regard it as the right of a Member of Parliament to express his views against a Bill which has no rational or proper constitutional basis. The Bill is essentially a childish measure in which the hon. Member for Berwickshire—

Mr. Home Robertson: Get it right. East Lothian.

Mr. Fairbairn: The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson)—who lives in Berwickshire. He owns it. Part of what he owns is in dreaded England. One still has to go through dreaded England to get there.
The Bill seeks to say, "Because we temporarily have a political advantage in one part of the land mass of the United Kingdom, we want to separate that bit off to our temporary advantage and impose our principles in one part of the kingdom which we shall never be likely to impose in the foreseeable future"—and, I hope, not in any other part of the United Kingdom in my lifetime if I live to be 200.
The absurd premise upon which the hon. Gentleman based his case was that remote government is bad government. Therefore, he proposes this afternoon that there should be a form of government that is run from Edinburgh and that controls, among other places, Kirkwall. Kirkwall happens to be rather further from Edinburgh than Edinburgh is from London and certainly further from Edinburgh than London is from Paxton, where the hon. Gentleman lives. Therefore, the concept of geographical distance has nothing whatever to do with the rights or wrongs of government.
If the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) imagines that Scotland should be a sort of Jewish homeland for the Scots, all I can say is that he should understand that the majority of Scots in the United Kingdom of whom he is so fond do not live in Scotland but in England, Wales and Ireland. Of all the Scots who dwell upon the earth the vast majority live in North America. Far more Scots live in Australia and New Zealand than in Scotland.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: rose—

Mr. Fairbairn: Therefore, the concept of a separate Scottish Government or Assembly is bogus.
I do not doubt that, as the hon. Member for East Lothian said, the teachers' strike would have been settled. Of course it would. Socialism is all about giving away somebody else's money without thought for the consequences. I have not the slightest doubt that the miners' strike in Scotland would have been settled with an Assembly. The Assembly, of which he would presumaably be a member — that would be the only benefit to the House of Commons — would again give them the money. The consequences for the rest of the people of Scotland would not matter one whit.
As the hon. Gentleman was foolish enough to quote Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, who happens to be one the greatest and wisest Scottish writers, let me remind him that although he prayed him in aid, Andrew Fletcher would not have been happy to read the purblind mucked-up English in which the hon. Gentleman's Bill is couched. Andrew Fletcher was a patriot—he was as much a British patriot

as he was a Scottish patriot. Our country is Great Britain. We have one Queen, one Parliament and one people. Let it never be divided.
If the wishes of Opposition Members were to come to fruition, and if they think that they can cut little bits off the body politic when it suits them, I have no doubt that the south-east of England, the north-west of England and other little places that see a temporary advantage would wish to do the same.
I invite the House to reject the introduction of the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 115, Noes 223.

Division No. 125]
[4.40 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Alton, David
Haynes, Frank


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Home Robertson, John


Barron, Kevin
Howells, Geraint


Beith, A. J.
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Blair, Anthony
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Boyes, Roland
Hume, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Johnston, Russell


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Kennedy, Charles


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Kirkwood, Archy


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Lambie, David


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Lamond, James


Bruce, Malcolm
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Buchan, Norman
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Caborn, Richard
Loyden, Edward


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
McGuire, Michael


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Canavan, Dennis
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cartwright, John
Maclennan, Robert


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McNamara, Kevin


Clarke, Thomas
McTaggart, Robert


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Maxton, John


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Corbett, Robin
Meadowcroft, Michael


Corbyn, Jeremy
Michie, William


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Craigen, J. M.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
O'Neill, Martin


Deakins, Eric
Park, George


Dewar, Donald
Parry, Robert


Douglas, Dick
Patchett, Terry


Duffy, A. E. P.
Pavitt, Laurie


Eastham, Ken
Penhaligon, David


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Radice, Giles


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Randall, Stuart


Ewing, Harry
Redmond, M.


Fatchett, Derek
Richardson, Ms Jo


Faulds, Andrew
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Fisher, Mark
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Rogers, Allan


Forrester, John
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Foster, Derek
Skinner, Dennis


Foulkes, George
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Snape, Peter


Freud, Clement
Steel, Rt Hon David


Godman, Dr Norman
Strang, Gavin


Golding, John
Straw, Jack


Gould, Bryan
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Gourlay, Harry
Torney, Tom


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Wainwright, R.


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Wallace, James


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Williams, Rt Hon A.






Woodall, Alec
Mr. David Marshall and



Mr. William McKelvey.


Tellers for the Ayes:



NOES


Ancram, Michael
Fox, Marcus


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Freeman, Roger


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Fry, Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Galley, Roy


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Garrett, W. E.


Beggs, Roy
Gorst, John


Best, Keith
Gow, Ian


Bevan, David Qilroy
Grant, Sir Anthony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Greenway, Harry


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gregory, Conal


Blackburn, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Ground, Patrick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grylls, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Gummer, John Selwyn


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hanley, Jeremy


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hannam, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Harris, David


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Harvey, Robert


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Haselhurst, Alan


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Browne, John
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Budgen, Nick
Hayes, J.


Bulmer, Esmond
Hayhoe, Barney


Burt, Alistair
Hayward, Robert


Butcher, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butterfill, John
Henderson, Barry


Cash, William
Hickmet, Richard


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Holt, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howard, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cope, John
Hunter, Andrew


Corrie, John
Irving, Charles


Couchman, James
Jackson, Robert


Cowans, Harry
Jessel, Toby


Cranborne, Viscount
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Crouch, David
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dicks, Terry
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dixon, Donald
Key, Robert


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Dunn, Robert
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Durant, Tony
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Knowles, Michael


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lang, Ian


Farr, Sir John
Lawler, Geoffrey


Favell, Anthony
Lawrence, Ivan


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Leadbitter, Ted


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Forth, Eric
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lester, Jim





Lightbown, David
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Ryder, Richard


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lord, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Luce, Richard
Sayeed, Jonathan


McCrindle, Robert
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Macfarlane, Neil
Shelton, William (Streatham)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Silvester, Fred


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Sims, Roger


McQuarrie, Albert
Skeet, T. H. H.


McWilliam, John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Major, John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Malins, Humfrey
Speed, Keith


Malone, Gerald
Spence, John


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Marlow, Antony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mates, Michael
Squire, Robin


Mather, Carol
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maude, Hon Francis
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mellor, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sumberg, David


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Miscampbell, Norman
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Terlezki, Stefan


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Moore, John
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thornton, Malcolm


Murphy, Christopher
Tracey, Richard


Needham, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nelson, Anthony
Waddington, David


Neubert, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Newton, Tony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Normanton, Tom
Walden, George


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Walters, Dennis


Parris, Matthew
Ward, John


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Pawsey, James
Warren, Kenneth


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Watts, John


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Pollock, Alexander
Whitfield, John


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Whitney, Raymond


Powell, William (Corby)
Wiggin, Jerry


Powley, John
Wilkinson, John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Winterton, Nicholas


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wolfson, Mark


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wood, Timothy


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)



Roe, Mrs Marion
Tellers for the Noes:


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn and


Rost, Peter
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.


Rowe, Andrew

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Water (Fluoridation) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

New Clause 6

MONITORING OF FLUORIDE LEVELS

'The Secretary of State shall make provision for constant monitoring of the levels of fluoride within all parts of the United Kingdom.'.—[Mr. Best.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Keith Best: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the following: New clause 11—Monitoring—
'The Secretary of State shall establish machinery for monitoring the effects of the operation of this Act with particular reference to—

(a) benefit for teeth;
(b) harm to health;
(c) harm to plant and aquatic life

and to report the result of such monitoring to each House of Parliament every 12 months.'.
New clause 18—Termination of applications under section 1(1)—
If at any time it appears to the Secretary of State that the addition of fluoride to the water supply is harmful to health he shall terminate any application made under section 1(1).'.

Mr. Best: While I agree that it would be convenient to discuss the three new clauses together, I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have been informed by a number of hon. Members that they would like separate Divisions on each of the new clauses.
New clause 6 requires:
The Secretary of State shall make provision for constant monitoring of the levels of fluoride within all parts of the United Kingdom.
That would require my right hon. Friend to examine fluoride levels to see whether the health authorities and statutory water undertakers were abiding by the legislation, especially the provision that the level of fluoride added to water, so far as reasonably practicable, was one part per million.
New clause 11 is different, in that it requires my right hon. Friend to
establish machinery for monitoring the effects of the operation of this Act with particular reference to—

(a) benefit for teeth;
(b) harm to health;
(c) harm to plant and aquatic life

and to report the result of such monitoring to each House of Parliament every 12 months.'.
That monitoring is designed to look at the effects of the addition of fluoride on health and the other aspects mentioned in the clause.
New clause 18 is different from the other two, in that
'If at any time it appears to the Secretary of State that the addition of fluoride to the water supply is harmful to health he shall terminate any application made under section 1(1).'.
The gravamen of that is to give the Secretary of State a power, which he would not otherwise enjoy, to act should it become obvious to him that there was harm to health.

He would then be able to step in and prevent fluoride from being added to water. In other words, the clause would place on my right hon. Friend a duty to be, as it were, the guardian of the public health in this matter.
Although it may be convenient for hon. Members to debate the three clauses together, they are separate in their effects and, in those circumstances, I hope that we shall be able to have separate Divisions on them in due course.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was kind enough to mention the matter to me during the last Division. Having looked into the matter, I believe that it is convenient for the House to debate them together, and I shall be prepared to allow a separate Division on new clause 11.

Mr. Best: I am grateful to you for that indication, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. New clauses 6 and 11 are concerned with monitoring. Other hon. Members may feel—I do not feel this—that the Government have scope to conduct monitoring satisfactorily. New clause 18, however, is totally different, in that it is designed to come into effect if something goes wrong. Under that provision the Secretary of State would have power to take action urgently, and in the circumstances with which that clause is concerned urgent action would be required. Is there any possibility of your reconsidering the matter and allowing a Division on new clause 18?

Mr. Speaker: I have looked at the matter carefully, and the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best), in whose name new clause 18 stands, knows that it is somewhat defective in its drafting. I would not be prepared to allow a separate Division on that. I believe that this grouping of new clauses gives wide enough scope for a general debate, and the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) can advance the case to which he referred, even if he does not support it.

Mr. Marlow: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. I take on board everything that you have said. The Minister may comment on the issue later, and he may be able to satisfy the House that the subject with which new clause 18—even though it may be defective—deals is already provided for in the Bill. However, if the Minister does not have the opportunity to deal with that issue, or cannot satisfy the House about it, might you, in those circumstances, feel able to reconsider the matter?

Mr. Speaker: Let us wait and see what the Minister says on the subject, and then I may reconsider the matter.

Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Might I raise with you a matter concerning the notes on clauses, which I understand were available to hon. Members who were fortunate enough to serve on the Standing Committee? I have ascertained from the Vote Office as such notes on clauses as were available at that time are not available today. It would be helpful for hon. Members who wish to participate in debating what is an important matter to have access to the notes on clauses. I wonder whether the Minister has made arrangements for the Vote Office to make that information available for us.

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter not for me but for the Government. The Minister will have heard what the hon. Member has said, as a result of which something may happen.

Mr. Best: I can assist my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). I asked the Department to provide me with a copy of that information, and it was good enough to do so. I regret that the documents which my hon. Friend wants are not available in the Vote Office. I agree with him that hon. Members might find the information useful. I think that that has been the practice in the past. I shall be schooled by others who may have a better recollection as to whether notes on new clauses and amendments have been provided in the Vote Office on other Bills. It is my recollection that they have been, but I am not sure.

5 pm

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Notes on clauses are provided by the Government as a matter of courtesy to Members of the Standing Committee. That is a courtesy on which I have always been keen when in opposition and in government. I am glad that the practice has been appreciated by individual Members. I do not think that it has been extended to an obligation on the part of the Government to provide, through the Vote Office, large numbers of notes on clauses for every hon. Member. I regret that this much-sought-after volume of notes is out of print, but I shall see what can be done to get a few spare copies which might be handed around the Chamber to those hon. Members who have been drawn here by the debate.

Mr. Best: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. It is not a matter for debate now, but it may be at another time and elsewhere, as to whether the courtesy extended to members of a Committee in regard to the provision of notes on new clauses should be extended to the whole House. Perhaps some of my hon. Friends protest too much. When they get a copy of the notes on new clauses, they may not be greatly assisted—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I think that we have gone far enough on this matter. It is time to return to the new clause and leave the notes on clauses.

Mr. Best: You have very properly schooled me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am sure that the House would wish me at the outset to express gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary and to those responsible for having allocated a whole day's debate to the Bill today, following the difficulties that several of us faced last Tuesday when the debate was finally adjourned in the small hours, not having started until 10.30 pm. I want to place on record my personal gratitude to my right hon. Friend for having allowed us a full debate on a matter which is of great importance to us all.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not under-estimate the importance of the matter. The debate has been going on for several minutes and I am still waiting to hear the hon. Gentleman move the new clause. Does he wish to move it?

Mr. Best: I have moved it formally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall now address my mind entirely to the new clause.
As I was intimating a few moments ago, the three new clauses which we are discussing are similar in so far as

they place a duty on the Secretary of State, but are different in the effect that they would have. Therefore, it is right to examine them as individual new clauses.
New Clause 6 requires the Secretary of State to
make provision for constant monitoring of the levels of fluoride within all parts of the United Kingdom.
I tabled the new clause following the profound disquiet expressed by a large number of hon. Members from all parties represented in the House, and also because of great disquiet expressed by many of the general public. Indeed, I think it is right to say that there is a large measure of disquiet among members of the Government themselves. No fewer than 21 members of the Government have in the past expressed opposition to fluoridation. Of course, they are entitled to change their minds and it may be that they will go through the Lobby with the Govenment tonight. I do not intend to mention all those right hon. and hon. Friends by name, because I have not had the opportunity to say to them all that I would mention them, although I have to some of them. It is right to place on record that in the past, whatever the situation now, a quarter or more of the Government payroll vote were opposed to the artificial fluoridation of water supplies.

Mr. Marlow: I hope that I am not interfering with the flow of my hon. Friend's argument, which, as usual, is convincing and logical. My hon. Friend has passed over an important point and I hope that he will come back to it. His new clause specifies the United Kingdom. Can he tell the House why he has taken the United Kingdom as a whole? As I understand it, it is possible that in various component parts of the United Kingdom there are slightly different regimes and slightly different ways in which the matter is organised. Yet within his new clause he is grouping all parts of the United Kingdom together. Is there perhaps not a defect in his new clause? Perhaps he should treat the different parts of the United Kingdom in different ways. Can my hon. Friend enlighten the House on this?

Mr. Best: I am grateful to thy hon. Friend for that intervention. I do not want to digress from the essence of my remarks, but the first reason why I moved the new clause as presently constituted to include the whole of the United Kingdom was as an act of charity, as it were, to the Government. The Government use as an argument in favour of fluoridation the fact that fluoride occurs naturally in the water in some parts of the United Kingdom. Therefore, they ask why it should not be added artificially to the water in other parts.
If my new clause were to become part of the Bill it would enable the Government to demonstrate, through monitoring by the Secretary of State, what the levels of fluoride were in artificially fluoridated areas, compared to the levels in areas where fluoride occurs—I was about to use the word "naturally" but that would be wrong, because fluoride does not occur naturally as a constituent element of water; it is something that water picks up on its passage through the ground. That in itself is an important factor. That is one reason for drafting the new clause.
There is a second reason. My hon. Friend will have seen that the Bill, as drafted, applies to England, Wales and Scotland and that it is stated that an Order in Council will be dealt with by affirmative resolution of the House to include Northern Ireland. Therefore, for the sake of


completeness, and in anticipation that other parts of the Bill will become law, I drafted the new clause to include the whole of the United Kingdom.
As I was saying, new clause 6 requires the Secretary of State to monitor
the levels of fluoride within all parts of the United Kingdom.
Clause 1(5) states:
Any health authority making arrangements with a statutory water undertaker in pursuance of an application shall ensure that those arrangements include provisions designed to secure that the concentration of fluoride in the water supplied to consumers in the area in question is, so far as is reasonably practicable, maintained at one milligram per litre.
Grave concern has been expressed that that subsection is, if I may use a phrase that seems appropriate in the circumstances, wishy-washy. That subsection is regarded by many of my hon. Friends as carte blanche for saying, "Take a stab in the dark; take it or leave it; do not bother to get it right, but just have round about the 1 mg per litre level and everybody will be satisfied." There is no provision in the Bill for the level of fluoride to be monitored by anybody, let alone by the Secretary of State, who is answerable to the House.

Sir Dudley Smith: I share my hon. Friend's fears. Has he evidence that any monitoring goes on at present where fluoride has been added? If his new clause should be carried by the House, is he of the opinion that inevitably the Secretary of State will appoint the water authority to do the monitoring, because it would be bureaucratic to appoint other officials to go all over the country to carry out this role?

Mr. Best: I believe that monitoring is done by some water authorities, but I cannot quote chapter and verse. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) may be able to enlighten the House, or my right hon. and learned Friend may be able to do so. If the new clause is passed, the Secretary of State might well appoint the statutory water undertakers to do the monitoring. The point of the new clause is to fix on the Secretary of State the responsibility for monitoring. There must be grave concern in the House that there is no provision in the Bill for monitoring.
Secondly, if it were a discharge of the functions and duties of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under the new laws merely to appoint the statutory water undertakings to effect the monitoring, that would be regarded by many, and certainly by myself, as a matter of great concern. Effectively, that would be removing the burden from the shoulders of my right hon. Friend and placing it on the shoulders of the water authorities, which are not directly elected authorities. We have already had a lengthy debate about the state of democracy in the absence of local control. It would be a matter of concern if the water authorities were able to undertake monitoring without being subject to my right hon. Friend's control.
The essence of new clause 6 is to ensure that the buck stops somewhere. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington is nodding in agreement, and I am grateful to him. Surely the buck should stop in this place. We must not say to water authorities or health authorities through the medium of the Bill that they can have a stab at getting it right and that they need not bother to get it absolutely right at 1 mg per litre. We should not imply that they can stick in the fluoride as they wish, or within the terms of "as far as is practicable", and follow

that up by saying that the Bill contains no monitoring provision. Surely responsibility must lie fairly and squarely on the shoulders of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Frank Haynes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that water authorities have been set up as secret societies? The general public, the local press and the media generally do not have access to their meetings and cannot listen to their discussions prior to decisions being made. The hon. Gentleman must agree that there could be a complete cover-up if things went wrong. If the Government get away with the enactment of the Bill, an inspectorate should be set up to ensure that there is effective monitoring. We must remember that we are talking about a poison. In the mining industry, for example, there are inspectors whose role it is to ensure that everything is all right. If the Bill is enacted, an inspectorate should be established to ensure that there is proper monitoring in the interests of the people, bearing in mind that we are talking about a poison.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) that interventions should be brief.

Mr. Best: The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) has raised two valuable points. He has suggested that secret societies will be making decisions, as the health authorities and water authorities do not allow the public access to their meetings. The hon. Gentleman has tabled an amendment which has been selected for discussion by Mr. Speaker. I have no doubt that he will be able to catch your eye later in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that he will address himself to the secretiveness, as it were, of the authorities. I hope that I, too, will be able to catch your eye when that debate takes place, so that I can make my contribution to it. I have great sympathy with the view which the hon. Gentleman has expressed. It is right that the general public should be present when decisions are taken in their name that will affect the health of every citizen. We must remember that no one can make a decision not to drink water. Therefore, we are discussing an issue that affects everyone.
The hon. Member for Ashfield made a second valuable point. He expressed his concern about the possibility of a cover-up. I do not indulge in arcane considerations of dark and devious methods that might be adopted by health authorities or water authorities. However, I can understand that those who are less charitable than myself, and perhaps more suspicious, might take the view that in certain circumstances those methods might be used. The hon. Gentleman has expressed a genuine fear, and it is one that should be assuaged by provisions in the Bill.
5.15 pm
In Annapolis in the United States there was a cover-up. Someone died as a result of too much fluoride being added to the water by mistake. The authority which investigated the matter said that it would never have been brought to its attention had it not been for the fact that those on renal dialysis units had been made ill and that one of them had died. That is a germane example to support the fear that the hon. Member for Ashfield has expressed.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I invite my hon. Friend to compare new clause 6 with new clauses 14 and 24 which I tabled but which have not been selected. New clause 6 suggests that there should be monitoring but


provides no method by which the public should be told of the results, whereas my new clauses would ensure that the information reached the public. In Annapolis the local water authority discovered that it had overdone the dosage and it decided to try to keep that quiet. Authorities would not have to publish figures under my hon. Friend's new clause, so the possibility of authorities deciding to keep things quiet would be even greater. Perhaps he will address himself to that.

Mr. Best: My hon. and learned Friend makes a valuable contribution to the debate, which we have come to expect of him. There is great concern about the way in which monitoring should be carried out and the effect of that monitoring.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Best: I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) wishes to intervene. I do not want to give way on many more occasions, as I want to proceed with my speech. I do not wish to delay the House too much.

Mr. Marlow: I apologise to my hon. Friend for intervening. I am grateful to him for giving way. I apologise, because I do not mean to be critical of my hon. Friend. This is a worthwhile new clause, but I take the point that has been made by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) about monitoring and inspection. My hon. Friend is putting it to the House that the Government or the Secretary of State should make provision for constant monitoring of the levels of fluoride in all parts of the United Kingdom. If that is to be done, it will have to be done somehow, by someone, by some people or by some organisation. I feel that it is unfair of my hon. Friend to bring forward the new clause to the Government, to the Secretary of State and to the Minister of Health without telling them what he has in his mind as to how this task should be carried out. I shall be interested to hear what he has to say.

Mr. Best: My hon. Friend has put his finger on a weakness in my argument. Perhaps it is my fault that he has done so, as I allowed him to intervene. I must confess to the House that the new clauses were drafted late at night or in the small hours of the morning. I do not pretend to be a parliamentary draftsman. I suspect that there may be defects in the clauses, and I hope that I shall be forgiven if that is the case. I hope also that my hon. Friend will consider the broad thrust of the argument and what I seek to achieve by way of the clauses.
In this instance, I am not prepared to accept the criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North and to agree that there is a defect, although there might be defects in other areas. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would introduce regulations to deal with the way in which monitoring should take place. The regulations would provide the detailed nuts and bolts if the new clause were to become part of the Bill.
I shall proceed to the other new clauses in the group, as I do not want to detain the House for too long on each one. However, before doing so I shall ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health a rhetorical question which I hope will stimulate him to leap to the Dispatch Box to answer me affirmatively and helpfully.

What is the Government's objection to saying that someone should monitor the levels of fluoride in our water? How can there be any objection to that?
I shall listen with great care to what my right hon. and learned Friend has to say. It may be that, on behalf of the Government, he will not wish to see this new clause as part of the Bill, in which case I shall be interested to hear the arguments that he advances. I cannot for the life of me see how in a matter so fundamentally affecting the health of every citizen of this country anybody could object to a provision to ensure that there is a responsibility to check the levels from time to time. I ask nothing more than that, and that must be right.
I see nods of assent from several quarters, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will take on board the fact that this new clause ought to be accepted by the Government, because it merely establishes the point that the Government should monitor the levels of fluoride in the water.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend wish to intervene?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It is kind of my hon. Friend to allow me to anticipate the arguments with which I hope to persuade him in due course. At the moment, when fluoride is added it is regularly monitored by the water authorities, and has been for many years. We have been adding fluoride for 30 years and there has never been any untoward incident or anybody previously demanding that the Department should take on this obligation. There is nothing wrong with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend, but if a new obligation is to be taken on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services we shall need extra manpower to deal with that extra obligation, to no apparent purpose.

Mr. Best: I am deeply concerned, indeed, at what my right hon. and learned Friend has just said. It seems to me that he is seeking to pass the buck by saying that the Government should not be responsible for monitoring the levels of fluoride. Surely the Secretary of State should be responsible to the House, and the only way that we can make him responsible is by placing on him a duty to monitor the levels of fluoride. My right hon. and learned Friend is saying that we cannot afford to employ more manpower.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We have many methods of protecting public safety. We have here a perfectly harmless method of adding fluoride to water. There is fail-safe machinery and there are competent people in the water authorities who have been monitoring this successfully for 30 years, with no public complaint. There are one or two things for which the Department would like to employ manpower and resources.

Mr. Best: My hon. and learned Friend makes the point again that manpower is a problem, so let us concentrate on the other aspect of what he has just said that concerns me. I am sure that the people of Annapolis, before the incident which led to somebody's death, would have said that fluoride had been added to the water without any incident so far, so they need not bother about monitoring the levels. I am sure that that sort of thing is always said before there is a fatal accident or something else terrible happens. I am sure that the people of Bhopal said, before the accident, that there had never been an accident at the chemical works, so it must be all right.
Is my right hon. and learned Friend really seeking to make the case that since everything has gone all right in the past there is no obligation on the Government to do anything? I find that very unpersuasive indeed, and I can only hope that by the time he gets to the Dispatch Box he will have thought of a better argument. If not, I suspect that he will not carry the House with him.

Mr. Michael Brown: My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health really ought to consider the appraisal by Lord Douglas of the report on fluoridation by the Royal College of Physicians in 1976, in which a comparative study was made of about 10 cities in the United States. An analysis was done of the cancer death rates. Some cities had been adding fluoride to the water since the war, while other cities had been adding it only since the 1960s. The jump in cancer deaths is most interesting. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend, in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best), should take on board very seriously the appraisal in this report.

Mr. Best: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I shall quote some examples of studies which have demonstrated the problems resulting from adding fluoride to water supplies. It appears that some of those studies are not known about by the Government. I have a reason for saying that, which I will advance in due course.
I have not forgotten about new clause 11, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it would be convenient for the House, I think, if I were to concentrate next on new clause 18. It is very simple in its phraseology, but its effect is terribly important for the individual liberty of subjects of this country. The clause reads:
If at any time it appears to the Secretary of State that the addition of fluoride to the water supply is harmful to health he shall terminate any application made under section 1(1).
I was advised a moment ago by Mr. Speaker and also by one of the learned Clerks, who was most helpful, that this new clause is defective in some way. I think that it is defective because the word "terminate" and the words "Secretary of State" appear in the same sentence. [Laughter.] I was not seeking to amuse the House.

Mr. Fairbairn: I should have thought, being a simpler person, that one cannot terminate an application. What is being terminated is what results from the application.

Mr. Best: I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, and I must confess to sloppy draftsmanship again, for which I hope the House will forgive me. However, I hope this will mean that my right hon. and learned Friend can get the best of both worlds. He can ask the House to vote against the new clause because it is defective and say that the Government will move their own new clause which will effectively put things right and establish the principle which I am seeking to establish. I hope that such a new clause will be moved in the other place by the Government to ensure that the effect of my new clause becomes part of the Bill. I believe that this is fundamental, because the new clause says that if it appears to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the addition of fluoride causes harm to health — I do not make any judgment on this in the new clause, although I shall advance arguments in a moment to demonstrate that there is significant evidence that fluoride causes harm to health — he will ensure that the artificial fluoridation of the water supply shall cease.
What can be wrong with that? What possible objection can there be to that? If it appears that it causes harm, the Secretary of State, with whom the buck should stop, and who is answerable to the House, should tell the statutory water authority to cease fluoridation forthwith. At the present time—unless my right hon. and learned Friend can correct me — there is no provision in the Bill for ceasing to add fluoride to the water supply even if it appears harmful to health.
Although it stretches the bounds of credibility a little wide to suggest that any health authority would not withdraw an application for fluoridation of the water supplies if it became obvious that there was a danger to health, how can one know the level of perversity of a health authority, a non-elected body? How can we in this House, who are answerable to our constituents, be sure that a health authority, composed of experts who now are prepared to recommend that people should have mass-medication through the artificial addition of fluoride to their water supplies, who are not subject to any democratic control whatsoever, who are adopting the attitude of Big Brother, the nanny state, and saying, "We know what is good for you; therefore you must have fluoride," when confronted with evidence that fluoride is harmful to the health, will withdraw its application? There is no guarantee whatsoever. There is nothing whatsoever in the Bill as at present constituted which would ensure that a health authority, in these circumstances, would withdraw its application.
That is perhaps the Bill's gravest defect. There may be a great body of evidence to show that fluoride is harmful to health, but that will not stop the health authority saying, "Aha, but we do not believe that evidence. We know best. We know that it is not harmful to health. We will discount that evidence." If it discounts that evidence, there is nothing in the Bill — no matter how plausible and persuasive the evidence—to prevent it from continuing to add fluoride to the water supplies.

Mr. Fairbairn: I have two matters that I wish to raise. First, we are talking, not about mass medication, but about the force feeding of a medicinal product. If we all had chicken-pox and were made to take something to cure it, that would be mass medication. We are talking about the forced feeding of a medicinal toxic product when people are not suffering from any relevant illness. Secondly, the important point is not that it may be shown to be harmful, but that if just one person can be shown to have developed an illness—whether or not it is reversible—as a result of adding that toxic medicinal compound to the water supply, we surely have enough evidence to withdraw fluoride from the water supply.

Mr. Best: I have to say with great heaviness of heart and disappointment that that is not the Government's view.

Mr. Fairbairn: I know.

Mr. Best: I share my hon. and learned Friend's views on this matter. I believe that the right of an individual—however insignificant he may be in society—not to be harmed by Government action is something that must be considered. We should view it with the gravest concern when that person stands to be harmed by the actions not even of the Government but of a non-elected body that is not answerable to anyone.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) has touched on a significant point. People will not be satisfied when my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister says, "Just because it has been all right in the past, nothing will happen in the future." I hope that I have not done my right hon. and learned Friend a disservice in paraphrasing him in that way.

Mr. Fairbairn: What about thalidomide?

Mr. Best: I was not going to mention that, because I do not wish to be accused of scaremongering. There is a great danger of being accused of that when discussing this subject. Consequently, when I present my evidence that harm can be caused to individuals and other things, I shall choose my words very carefully. The debate will no doubt be followed closely by those who are directly concerned. Hon. Members should bear in mind, incidently, that everyone is directly concerned, because we all have to drink water. I do not want to be emotive or to cause those of us who passionately believe that the Government are wrong to be accused of using scaremongering tactics.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I would not want my hon. Friend to push the thalidomide example too far, but is not the importance of that example that we are dealing once again with doctors, dentists and medical scientists who assert with absolute conviction that it is safe to fluoridate the water, and who ignore all the warnings? We are saying only that there were doctors and scientists who asserted with equal conviction that thalidomide was safe. They also ignored the warnings and were ultimately proved wrong. There is, after all, some doubt about the safety that medical and scientific men assert with great conviction, and scientists who advocate foundation should remember how wrong the scientists were about thalidomide. They should remember also the other mistakes that the scientific community has made.

Mr. Best: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. I also agreed with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross said about the importance of the individual. If it can be demonstrated that one individual, however insignificant, may be harmed, that is sufficient reason to say that there should be a safeguard in the Bill. I do not even have to go as far as my hon. and learned Friends the Members for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and for Perth and Kinross, because the new clause says only:
If … it appears to the Secretary of State that the addition of flouride to the water supply is harmful to health he shall terminate any application".
Unless my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister can put forward a cogent argument, I shall remain unable to see what is wrong with giving my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the right to stop the artificial fluoridation of water supplies when it has been demonstrated that it is harmful. The corollary of rejecting my new clause must be that the Secretary of State will be satisfied that it is harmful, and will do nothing. As drafted, that is the effect of the Bill. I wish to protect my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State from that invidious situation and from the criticism that will be levelled at him when it is demonstrated that the artificial fluoridation of water supplies is harmful to health and he sits back and does nothing, because he has no power under the Bill to do

anything. That will lead to considerable concern, disquiet and criticism. It may cause his resignation and could even cause the Government to fall. I certainly wish to protect my right hon. Friend from that.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: rose—

Mr. Best: I give way to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft).

Mr. Meadowcroft: Whatever else one might accuse the Minister for Health of, it cannot be said that he is shy about intervening. Indeed, he could sometimes be accused of intervening too much.
We keep returning to the principle of fluoridation. I understand that hon. Members feel very strongly about it, but will the hon. Gentleman accept that those in favour of adding fluoride to the water supply feel equally strongly about the possible dangers and about the need to monitor the situation? Is he aware that that point was raised in Committee in relation to perhaps the most minor of afflictions, that of discoloration and dental mottling? In response to a point made by me in Committee, which appears at column 50 of Hansard, the Under-Secretary of State said that water was already monitored where fluoride occurred naturally. Even if the concentration amounts to only two points per milligram, there may be a possibility of discoloration. If that happens, the water is diluted. The hon. Gentleman keeps returning to the principle instead of tackling the point about whether monitoring goes on now.

Mr. Best: With great—

Mr. Toby Jesse: Respect.

Mr. Best: The word would not come out when referring to a Liberal. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman — because I and other hon. Members were grateful to him and his colleagues last Tuesday for supporting new clause 1 which requires the whole measure to be subject to some consultation and democratic control—we stand on opposite sides of the fence. He believes in the efficacy of fluoride and that it should be added to the water supply. Nevertheless, I suspect that what unites both him and I—

Mr. Fairbairn: Him and me.

Mr. Best: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. Perhaps I should have said, "him and me". I hope that my hon. and learned Friend is right about that. What concerns the hon. Member for Leeds, West, and other hon. Members, including myself—if I may put it that way—is that whatever is said about the monitoring that goes on now, it is surely right that the Secretary of State should be charged with the ability to insist on cessation of the artificial fluoridation of water supplies if it appears to him — he is, after all, answerable to the House — that fluoride is harmful. However hard the hon. Member for Leeds, West puts the case, he cannot argue that if fluoridation appears to be harmful there is a provision in the Bill to stop it by order of the Secretary of State, because there is none. We must rely on the good offices of the health authority. I am not sure whether every hon. Member has consummate faith in the good offices of health authorities.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Best: I apologise to my hon. Friend, and I hope that he will forgive me, but I wish to continue. I have been most generous and given way often.

Mr. Marlow: It is an important point.

Mr. Best: I am sorry, but I must continue. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me and that he will have an opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and advance his points in his own inimitable way. I have delayed the House for a long time, and I have a considerable amount more to say. I have not yet put to the House the evidence on which I base my argument. I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to continue and will remain in a sedentary position.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) must not persist. He has heard the hon. Gentleman say repeatedly that he will not give way.

Mr. Best: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I must continue.
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister a rhetorical question, which I hope will stimulate him to leap to the Dispatch Box and give an answer which will assuage all the fears of the House and leave me in a happy frame of mind. I hope he will say that, although the new clause may be defective, he will ensure that in another place the Government will table an amendment which will have precisely the same effect, of giving the Secretary of State the power to stop fluoridation where it appears to be harmful. I can see no objection to that. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to give that assurance. I see that he is suffering from sedentary cramp and is unable to come to the Dispatch Box. In all seriousness, I regret that. It is sad, because I drafted the amendment most carefully and in a way that was as generous as possible to the Government so that they could accept it without demur and without its diminishing the other aspects of the Bill.
I make no bones about the fact that I oppose the entire Bill. However, we are not debating the principle of the Bill or having a Second Reading debate. That has been obtained, and I am now genuinely seeking to table amendments which will ameliorate the effects of the Bill and assuage some fears. I greatly regret that my right hon. and learned Friend is unable to make that one concession, which is more of a safeguard than a concession. I suspect that in his heart of hearts he believes it to be right.

Mr. Marlow: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and sorry to have been so persistent, but I, too, wish to be helpful. My hon. Friend has alarmed the House. As my right hon. and learned Friend has not been able to respond to my hon. Friend's point, will my hon. Friend, as a lawyer, give the House some free advice? My hon. Friend has built up a vision of a rogue health authority to which proof has been brought that fluoride is causing harm to those who drink the water in its area. My hon. Friend has properly tabled an amendment to deal with that. If his amendment falls, people will be force-fed fluoride, knowing that it is doing them harm. That is terrifying. Will my hon. Friend reassure me that the Minister and the Secretary of State have power to do something about that appalling position, if it arises?

Mr. Best: My hon. Friend has a charitable view of lawyers if he thinks that any of them will give free advice. If what my hon. Friend describes comes to pass and the new clause is not incorporated in the Bill, no one will be required to stop artificial fluoridation if it appears to be harmful. One will have to rely on the better nature of the health authority or the statutory water undertaker. In those circumstances, if harm were done to an individual, there would be no way of stopping fluoridation by order, and therefore the only recourse would be for the harmed person to apply to a court for an injunction to have fluoridation stopped because the effect of the fluoridation had harmed him. The court would undoubtedly grant an injunction to stop the statutory water undertaker from adding fluoride to the water if it could be demonstrated that that was the best way to resolve the matter before the case was given a final hearing.
5.45 pm
The only remedy would be in damages. That is precisely why the Secretary of State indemnifies local authorities now. My right hon. Friend accepts that damage may be done. If he were satisfied that fluoridation could never cause harm, there would be no need for an indemnity. Why does my right hon. Friend indemnify statutory water undertakers in the event of their being sued by an individual who has suffered harm as a result of the artificial addition of fluoride to water supplies if he does not believe that fluoridation could cause harm? I hope that I have answered my hon. Friend's point. My answer does not give me any comfort, and I doubt whether it comforts him, but it is the reality. I hope that I have interpreted the matter correctly. If I have not, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister, who is also a lawyer, will come to the Dispatch Box and correct me.
I took the new clauses out of order because new clause 18 followed naturally on new clause 6, and I shall now deal with new clause 11. It requires the Secretary of State to
establish machinery for monitoring the effects of the operation of this Act with particular reference to—

(a) benefit for teeth;
(b) harm to health;
(c) harm to plant and aquatic life

and to report the result of such monitoring to each House of Parliament every 12 months.
What harm can such a provision do? What is wrong with putting a responsibility on the Secretary of State, who is answerable to the House, to monitor the effects of the addition of fluoride to water supplies to ascertain whether it benefits health and teeth, or harms health, and plant and aquatic life. Is that not of material significance and importance to every hon. Member and every member of the general public who is having fluoride added to his or her water supply without his or her consent? It is a fundamental matter.
I do not wish to detain the House for much longer, but I must deal with the evidence that gave rise to my tabling the new clause and to the grave anxiety that is shared by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends about the effect of the Bill if it is unamended by my new clause. Despite the greatly increased incidence of dental fluorosis, that is mottling, in fluoridated countries, parents continue to be advised to give their children fluoridated toothpastes, tablets and vitamin drops.
The evil of that advice is graphically illustrated in a letter to the American National Fluoridation News, in which a mother writes about the harm caused by giving fluoride vitamin drops to her second child. She wrote:


This child was born in a year when fluoride vitamin drops were the 'in thing', and he is now a constant reminder of my brainwashing. He has turned eight and his second teeth are coming in yellow like his first.
Jennifer, the little girl across the street, has also been given fluoride vitamin drops for the first five years of her life, causing her baby teeth to be discoloured. Now that she is five going six her second teeth are coming in and she is suffering from a disease that will not only affect her physically, but could very well submerge an already shy personality. Jennifer has fluorosis, and her top teeth are vertically striped and the bottom ones are mottled.
In this mother's opinion the dentist should be sued for malpractice. She ends the letter:
Those of us in the neighbourhood who have children with fluorosis are torn between the urge to show everyone the damage fluoride can do, and the desire to spare the children's feelings by not asking them to show their diseased teeth.
I do not refer to the veracity of the claim by the mother in that letter. I do not advance her claim as being truthful or otherwise, but she expresses a fear, and it is right that I should articulate fears expressed elsewhere in the world where fluoride has been added to water supplies. It is for the House and the public to determine whether what that lady says is based upon truth.
In April 1984 Here's Health carried an article entitled "Fluoride—the Threat to your Children". Some of my examples are from Scotland because fluoride has been added to the water supplies in Scotland. The cause celebre of Mrs. McColl of Strathclyde led to the Government introducing the Bill. In that case, it was proved beyond a shadow of doubt that the addition of fluoride to the water was illegal. The Government seek to ensure that what is now illegal is no longer illegal. They are turning the law on its head.
The Government are entitled to do that. Parliament can pass a law declaring that black is white. Parliament is sovereign and can do what it likes. However, that does not allay grave anxieties. After all, a court of law has declared a practice to be illegal—ultra vires—and the House is now being asked to say that what is illegal should be made legal.

Mr. Fairbairn: I do not think that my hon. Friend should jump to the conclusion that if the Bill becomes law—pray God it will not—fluoridation will be legal. Page 276 of Lord Jaunceys extensive judgment points out that sodium chloride is a medicinal product. We are dealing with more complex substances in the Bill.
A letter from the Committee on Safety of Medicines says that the products, fluorosilicic acid and sodium silicate fluoride have not been considered by the committee and have not been licensed for sale as medicinal products. Even if the Bill became law — I trust that it will not — it would remain illegal for those products to be added to the water supply as medicinal products.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are straying towards matters which are more appropriate to the Second Reading and which were dealt with thoroughly in that debate.

Mr. Best: I shall resist the temptation to answer my hon. and learned Friend's intervention.
In a leading article entitled "The Water Argument" on 12 November last year, the Dundee Courier and Advertiser stated:
Now that there is suspicion of cancer triggering by fluoridation, the responsibility on the experts and councilors

who argue that the substance is wholly beneficial is greater than ever. The expert can plead that it was the best knowledge available at the time he advised the action. The councillor who votes for fluoridation has an even greater responsibility. He has to say that he, not them, gives the authority to carry out this project.
Again, I make no judgment about the veracity or otherwise of the contents of that article. I merely present it to the House as an expression of concern. The House and the public must determine wherein the truth lies, if there be any truth in such a submission.
The House will agree that my argument is modest. It is that when such fears are expressed, it is the height arrogance for any Government to argue that there should be no capacity for informing the public of the effect of the artificial addition of fluoride to the water supply. I regret having to use the word "arrogant", but by rejecting the new clause, as I suspect my right hon. and learned Friend will seek to do, he displays that arrogance. I acknowledge that he acts, not personally, but on behalf of the Government.
I do not like that arrogance in anybody. I do not like to see it in a Government whom I have had the pleasure and privilege to support on so many of the measures that they have brought to the House and for the way in which they have governed the country for the last five years through a difficult time. I do not like to level that criticism, but I must do so, because for the Government not to accept the new clause is tantamount to saying, "We do not think that the people should be informed. We do not think that it is necessary or relevant. We do not think that people have the right to be informed about the effect of fluoride on health, on teeth and on animal and plant life."
The Government are saying, "Go ahead, fluoridate away to your heart's content." They are saying to non-elected bodies in England and Wales, "We shall not put any bars on your action. We shall not make you stop fluoridating water even if it is shown to be harmful. We are not even going to require you or the Secretary of State to tell people about the effects". All that my new clause seeks to do is to remedy that so that the Government take account of sensitivities and are mindful of the need to ensure that no legislation is passed without full account being taken of sensitivities and fears, rightly or wrongly expressed.
It is important that we do not display arrogance towards people. We are charged with the responsibility of legislating in ways that affect millions of our fellow countrymen. For us to say that it does not matter whether people are told what is going on is arrogant and wrong.
An article in the Kilmarnock Standard on 17 August last year stated:
Compulsory medication is only allowed by a court order for the mentally ill. Each person is put into this category when the water is fluoridated. This is easily recognised as a form of dictatorship.
Again, I make no judgment. I do not want those remarks to be attributed to me. I make no judgment about the veracity of that statement, but I draw it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend and the House because it is important that such fears are articulated. If the Bill is passed unamended, this is the last time that such fears can be articulated. They will not be ventilated through any mechanism in the Bill, because there is no such mechanism.
An article in the Glasgow Evening Times, on 31 October last year, stated:
The World Health Organisation are quoted in the current autumn issue of Homeopathy Today as having reached a general


consensus that 'all citizens have a right to health, and to medical care of their choice.' Both principles are about to be flouted by our Government in their proposed Bill to alter Scottish law to legalise compulsory water fluoridation in Scotland — thus annihilating the inherent rights of individuals and exposing those with allergies to fluorides to unnecessary illness and suffering.
6 pm
In the Sunday Telegraph on 18 November 1984, Mary Kenny said:
I have always accepted that fluoride in the water supplies is a sensible, constructive measure. My dentist, among others, has convinced me of the evidence as to its benefits: he says it does no harm, and it is a powerful prophylactic against tooth decay, particularly in young children.
Moreover, I have grown up with a prejudice against anti-fluoride campaigners, who have been widely regarded as rather eccentric.
[Interruption.] There is a note of amusement in the House. It may be true that some of the campaigners are eccentric. Miss Kenny continued:
Yet there are quite reasonable questions to be asked about fluoridation, and the anti-fluoride campaigners are by no means wild-eyed men and women with crazed conspiracy fancies … But why not just wait and see a little longer. It is always possible that the anti-fluoride campaigners really do have a point.
On 25 November 1984 Commander Hyde Burton commented on that article, saying:
A fact that Mary Kenny didn't bring out in last week's item about fluoridation was that 98–99 per cent. of all expenditure on fluoridation would be entirely wasted. Speaking as an ex-chairman of a statutory water company I think I am right in saying that of all water circulated only about 5 per cent. is used for drinking purposes and only a tiny proportion of that would go down the throats of children under 12 whose teeth might benefit.
No less important, of course, is the ethical aspect of mass-medication and the possible side effects of fluoridation. In my view it should be prevented at all costs.
On 28 January 1984 my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton tabled questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. He asked my right hon. Friend
(1) if he will list the sources of any evidence available to his Department of the upper limit of consumption of fluoride before (a) the teeth begin to discolour through mottling and (b) harm to health may begin to result;
(2) if he will list the sources of any evidence available to his Department of the degree of mottling of children and young persons' teeth from water fluoridated naturally or artificially to one part per million;
(3) if he will list the sources of any evidence available to his Department of the effect of a high concentration of magnesium and calcium in water containing natural fluoride at levels at or above one part per million."
I cannot do my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State any more disservice than he was done in Standing Committee when it was pointed out that in a former incarnation he had been an opponent of fluoride. I do not criticise him for that, because people are entitled to change their minds. Thank heavens hon. Members are capable of changing their minds in the light of new evidence. In the past, my hon. Friend said that it was his duty to oppose the use of fluoride, but he is now the Minister responsible for fluoridation.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: Will my hon. Friend check whether those children who have signs of mottled teeth have also been on antibiotics, which, taken from an early stage in life, can lead to mottling of the teeth?

Mr. Best: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that there are many causes of the harm done to children's

teeth. I am sure that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not digress, because if I did so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would call me to order. I do not wish to digress into what other matters may cause harm to children's teeth. I am concerned about the mottling of children's teeth because fluoride has been added to the water supplies.

Mr. Lawrence: Has my hon. Friend grasped the significance of the intervention by our hon. Friend from Scotland—

Mrs. McCurley: I represent Renfrew, West and Inverclyde. I should like to represent the whole of Scotland.

Mr. Lawrence: I am sure that in beauty my hon. Friend does so. I refer to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) and all parts north, south, east and west. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) said that children may have mottled teeth because they have drunk fluoridated water. If that fact were known generally, people might have different views on whether it is right to fluoridate water, since so many of their children have to be on antibiotics.

Mr. Best: If I have been misled, it may be because of the charm exhibited by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton and the beauty of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley). I apologise to the House if I have been so misled. I shall not develop that point. No doubt my hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to catch Mr. Speaker's eye later.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Best: I am loth to give way, because I have given way on a number of occasions. I must draw the line. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way.
In answer to that parliamentary question, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said:
The question of dental mottling was studied in the United States of America before the introduction of public water fluoridation. It was found that at a concentration of fluoride of about two parts per million an increasing proportion of children had mottled enamel that was apparent and objectionable aesthetically (Dean HT and Elvore E Further studies on the minimal threshold of chronic endemic dental fluorosis — Pub Health Rep 52: 1249–64 10 September 1937).
The Bill says to the water authorities, "Take a stab at it. Do not get it absolutely right with a concentration of one part per million. Get it right in so far as is reasonably practicable." What happens if the water authorities do not get it right? What will happen if "so far as is reasonably practicable" means that there will be a concentration, not of one part per million, but of two parts per million of fluoride in the water supplies? We know what will happen, because my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has given the answer. My hon. Friend will say that children will have "mottled enamel" which is "apparent and objectionable aesthetically". Will we condemn our children to that? Do hon. Members have a right to do that? They do not.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State went on:
There have been a number of studies contrasting the prevalence of dental mottling, which may have various causes, in comparable fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. A review of the evidence is, for example, contained in pages 349–354 of Lord Jauncey's opinion in the Strathclyde fluoridation case.


Lord Jauncey concluded:
'if the drinking water in Strathclyde is fluoridated to one part per million there is likely to be a very small increase in the prevalence of mottling of a type which will only be noticeable at very close quarters and … is very unlikely to create any aesthetic problems for the owners of the teeth'.
I hope that people are satisfied with my hon. Friend quoting Lord Jauncey's opinion:
there is likely to be a very small increase in the prevalence of mottling",
but do not worry about that because it
will only be noticeable at very close quarters and … is very unlikely to create any aesthetic problems for the owners of the teeth." — [Official Report, 28 January 1985; Vol. 72, c. 55–56.]
It will not create any problems for the owners of the teeth if they do not open their mouths and smile. It goes beyond the realms of credibility for the Government to introduce such a measure when the Minister, in answer to a parliamentary question as recently as 28 January, quoted Lord Jauncey who said that there will be mottling at one part per million, which is what is in the Bill—not at a higher level — in effect saying, "Do not worry. It will not be aesthetically unpleasant because it will only be noticeable at close quarters." The answer is not to be in close quarters with anyone because they might spot that one has mottled teeth as a result of fluoride being added to the water supplies. I find that completely unacceptable. I say that with all the force at my command.
The retiring chief dental officer of New Zealand, where fluoridation started more than 30 years ago said—

Mr. Lawrence: Auckland.

Mr. Best: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, but I believe that Auckland is in New Zealand. The retiring chief dental officer said:
Children's teeth are being harmed by fluoridation.
Tooth decay mercifully is not as rampant now as it was some 10–15 years ago. Studies have shown, for example, that there is less tooth decay among children in non-fluoridated Bristol, west Sussex and the south-west Thames region than in artificially fluoridated Anglesey, Scunthorpe and Newcastle upon Tyne. Does that not give the lie to those who say, "Put fluoride in your water supplies because it will ensure that your children's teeth will be all right"? That is rubbish. It may have some effect, but if people want their children's teeth to be all right they must tell them not to eat sweets and other sticky things which will cause dental caries.
There is a danger that if fluoride is added to the water supplies people will take a more relaxed attitude about whether children should eat sweets, because they will say, "That is all right. Go along. Have a sweet. It will not harm your teeth much because fluoride has been added to the water supplies and the experts tell us that that stops dental caries." That is a dangerous philosophy. Every dentist will say that the only way to stop dental caries is not by drinking fluoridated water but by not eating sticky sweets or anything of that nature. Taylor and Taylor of Texas university found that one part per million of fluoride increases tumour incidence growth by 13 to 17 per cent. I shall go through the points quickly, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the House will forgive me—

Mr. Michael McGuire: We must absorb it all.

Mr. Best: The hon. Gentleman says that we must absorb it all. Unfortunately, that will be the case for the citizens of this country. They will absorb it all if the Bill goes through. That is one of the matters that worries me. I hope that the House will forgive me if I go at some speed because I realise that I have been speaking at great length and I do not wish to detain the House for a moment longer than necessary.
Professor Mohammed of Missouri university has produced nine papers showing the mutagenic potential of one part per million that exists especially for mice. [Laughter.] My right hon. and learned Friend is consumed with mirth at the suggestion that genetic damage to mice may be caused by fluoride. I hope that he was not laughing at that, because if he were, that does not say much for the Government's belief that animals should be used for testing a variety of drugs before they are tested on humans.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend must not feel that the House is pressing him. These issues are vital and important and they are also complex. Please, please will my hon. Friend not rush what he is putting forward? It is complex. I am bearing with him so far. He mentioned the word mutagenic. My hon. Friend is a lawyer, perhaps he can explain what is meant by that word. I have a feeling that it means something can have a genetic effect upon unborn mammals or other animals which would mean that when they were born they would be missing some of their components or physical attributes. If that is what my hon. Friend means by the word, which I have not met before, it is a serious matter and I would ask him to slow down.

Mr. Best: The word comes from mutatus genus. It is Latin, and it means what my hon. Friend says. It is something that has an effect on genetics. I do not believe that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) agrees with me. I shall not give way for fear that his knowledge may be superior and I shall be found wanting.
Dr. Goester of the rheumatology and rehabilitation centre at the University hospital of Lausanne in Switzerland found that the accumulation of fluoride in a patient's bone tissue led to spontaneous fractures in the neck of both thigh bones. Dr. Allen London, past president of the American Academy of Dental Medicine, said:
Any degree of dental fluorosis, even the least detectable, is an abnormality and is due to the toxic action of fluoride on the tissues forming the tooth.
Dr. Phillips, professor of biochemistry at the university of Wisconsin, said:
A fluoridated tooth can become carious and once it does there is no satisfactory repair.
The pro-fluoridation British Dental Journal in 1966 even said that 10 per cent. of children consuming water fluoridation at one part per million suffered from some degree of enamel mottling, indicating some degree of toxic effect. It would appear that the British Dental Journal and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security agree that fluoride in the water supplies causes enamel mottling, which, in the view of my hon. Friend — adopting Lord Jauncey's view — is aesthetically unpleasant only at close quarters.
The new clause deals with the effect of fluoride on teeth and the harm that it may do to other substances. In Seattle there was an investigation into the increase in plumbing corrosion as a result of fluoridisation. The study was set


up by the Kennedy engineers in 1970 and it said that by 1976, plumbing corrosion costs in Seattle would be in excess of $7 million per year or about $30 for each dwelling. The report stated:
Fluoridation significantly increases the rate of corrosion for copper, galvanised steel and black steel piping.
In 1956, the newsletter of the Australian Institute of Plumbers said that the corrosive action of fluoride would require the replacing of the underground water mains of the North Andover public water supply. It said:
Fluoride is softening the heavy rust formation that has collected on the inside of the town water mains over the years, to a semi-soft consistency.
That is some of the evidence of the effects of fluoride on pipes and of its corrosive nature. I do not pass judgment on whether fluoride corrodes pipes, I merely bring these matters to the attention of the House because I believe that they should be mentioned so that hon. Members will be better informed about the matter when they go into the Lobby tonight, I hope, behind me.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary should have had some knowledge of those matters and the problems of corrosion, but, alas, that does not appear to be the case.
Today, I received an answer to a parliamentary question of mine, in which I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment
if any studies have been brought to his attention which indicate that fluoride when added to the water supplies has a corrosive or degenerative effect on the vessels through which it passes.
Nothing could be clearer than that. I have already drawn to the attention of the House the evidence of corrosion. One would have hoped that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have been aware of these matters. He replied:
No. Fluoridation schemes have been in operation in various parts of the country for up to thirty years and there is no evidence that the addition of fluoride at a concentration of one part per million has had any effect on the corrosive properties of the water. An American Water Works Association manual on fluoridation states that there has been no reported instance of pipeline corrosion in the United States traceable to the fluoride content of water.
What of the evidence that I have just brought to the attention of the House? I have never heard of the American Water Works Association manual, although my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health may use it as bedtime reading better to inform himself about these matters before coming to the House to argue them out. It appears that it had never heard of the evidence to which I have just drawn the attention of the House, although the Government appear to be basing their case on the American Water Works Association manual.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: Does my hon. Friend have some regard for the employment implications of this argument? If he were right, we could fluoridate the water, destroy our drainage systems and sewers and then have a massive capital programme to replace them, which would employ a great number of people, which would fit in with the political dogma advanced from some parts of the House. How would my hon. Friend feel about that argument?

Mr. Best: I regret to say that I do not find my hon. Friend's argument persuasive, and I do not wish to adopt it. I speak as a Member with the privilege of representing a constituency that, sadly, suffers from an unemployment level of 23 per cent. Whatever the employment implications, this matter is of such fundamental

importance to the individual's health and what should be the individual's right to make decisions affecting himself and his health, that they must be put on one side. One cannot ignore the importance of this matter as it affects the health of individuals.
I know that my hon. Friend will accept the sincerity with which I say that, as a Member representing a constituency suffering from such an alarmingly high level of unemployment. Not a day passes without my concerning myself about matters of unemployment in Anglesey. I suspect that he will have similar concerns for his constituency, as we all do. However, I hope that he will agree that this matter is of such importance that even these matters of employment, important as they are, should be secondary to ethical matters and matters of the individual's freedom and right to make decisions about his health.
Studies have been done into the enzyme effects. A Swedish biochemist, a Nobel prize winner for his work on enzyme chemistry has said:
as far as is known the toxic effect of fluoride is due solely to its inhibitor effect on many enzyme systems.
Dr. Robert Harris of the Nutritional Biochemistry Laboratories, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr. Rae, PhD in biochemistry and organics at the University of Toronto, McGowan and Suttie at the University of Wisconsin in the Journal of Nutrition—I could go on and on, but I shall not do so because I do not wish to delay the House any longer. The evidence is there and I do not have the time to articulate all of it, much as I would wish to. I do not wish to test the patience of the House. Therefore, I shall not develop the argument as I might do, and I can only hope that some of my hon. Friends will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and develop some points themselves.
Dr. Emsley, reader in chemistry in King's college, concluded that Fluoride's strong hydrogen bond with amides
has markedly increased the credibility of earlier claims of genetic damage, cancer and allergy from low fluoride levels.
I want the House to understand, and I hope that the general public will understand, that I make no judgment on the veracity or otherwise of the claims made in these studies. I do not pretend or purport to have the knowledge or understanding of these matters to enable me to make a valid judgment on those issues. All I do, and believe that it is right that I should do, is to bring those matters to the attention of the House. It is right that the House, when it votes on these matters of such importance, should do so as well-informed as possible of both sides of the argument, and not just on the argument that I seek to advance.

Mr. Jessel: Was not all that gone into and decided on in the Strathclyde case? Why is my hon. Friend talking as though the Strathclyde case had never happened?

Mr. Best: With great respect to my hon. Friend, one cannot talk as though the Strathclyde case had never happened, because if it had not happened we should not have the Bill before the House. It is because the Strathclyde case found that the addition of fluoride to the water supply was ultra vires that we have the Bill before the House.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: In the Strathclyde case, all the evidence, and the counter-evidence to which my hon. Friend has not referred, was heard. Lord Jauncey came to the conclusion that fluoride was a safe and useful additive to water. All the evidence that my hon. Friend has been


giving was rejected because it runs in the teeth of more reputable and more acceptable scientific evidence that goes in the opposite direction.

Mr. Best: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will understand why, and I hope that he will make no criticism of me for having done so, I do not advance the evidence of the other side of the argument. It is right that the House should hear the evidence of both sides of die argument. I do not articulate the evidence against the propositions that I have put because I do not have the time and it would be wrong of me to delay the House to do that. I would willingly do it, because I think that it is right that all these matters should be put fairly so that the House can make its decision. I do not do that now because of the time factor.
What is more, I know only too well that my right hon. and learned Friend, who is second to none in his powers of advocacy, will come to the Dispatch Box and will use all those powers to advance the argument against my arguments. It is right that the House should have it in that way. I hope that, in those circumstances, my right hon. and learned Friend will not think that I am being disingenuous or seeking to mislead the House by not advancing the arguments that I know that he will be advancing in due course. I must rest my case on the evidence that I refer.
Both my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) spoke about Lord Jauncey having much of this evidence in front of him. It is true that he rejected much of it, but it is also true that in other courts of law in the world, that evidence has not been rejected, but accepted. I suspect that neither my right hon. and learned Friend nor my hon. Friend would wish to base their case on the single judgment of one judge in Scotland.

Mr. Jessel: The case took over a year.

Mr. Best: However long it took for the learned judge to come to his conclusion does not enhance the quality of the conclusion at the end. I must caution my hon. Friend. It would be wrong for the House to base this legislation entirely on the decision of one judge, however learned, authoritative and well-informed. As soon as the House does that it relinquishes its legislative responsibility to the judiciary. Although I hold the judiciary in high respect, an opinion that is foreign to some hon. Members, I do not believe that it would conclude that this House should relinquish its legislative functions to the judiciary.

Mr. Fairbairn: I have had the privilege of appearing before every judge who has sat on the senior bench in Scotland during the last 25 years, Lord Jauncey included. My hon. Friend's point is fallacious. It is not for a judge to come to a decision on medical and scientific evidence, except for the purposes of a civil claim. It is not for a judge to say that Professor Blogg has said that one should have one's haemorrhoids surgically removed and that Professor Zogg has said that one should have them removed by means of an injection. I am in favour of the surgery, but that is not a judgment that I should like.

Mr. Best: My hon. and learned Friend is a formidable advocate. I can only hope that I never have the misfortune

to appear before him on the question whether my haemorrhoids should be removed in one way or another. I hasten to add that I do not suffer from that complaint and I trust that I never shall.

Mr. Fairbairn: My hon. Friend may suffer from that complaint as a result of speaking for too long.

Mr. Best: My hon. and learned Friend says that I may contract this problem as a result of speaking for too long. However, because of the way in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has been shifting about in a sedentary position, embarrassed by the evidence that I have drawn to the attention of the House which conclusively puts the mockers on his argument, he may be the first to succumb to that difficulty.
There is evidence of genetic damage. I do not seek to rely upon it as true evidence, nor do I seek to adopt it for scaremongering purposes. However, it is right that I should refer the House to the studies that have been undertaken. Then the House and the people of this country can decide whether they believe or reject the evidence, just as Lord Jauncey had the right to make the decision that he did.
In 1973, the Russian Research Institute of Industrial Health and Occupational Diseases found that fluoride caused genetic damage to a rat. In 1974 the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in the United States of America found that fluoride caused genetic damage in mice, sheep and cows. In 1978, the Pomeranian Medical Academy found that fluoride causes genetic damage in humans. In 1979, the National Institute of Dental Research in the USA showed that fluoride does not cause genetic damage in mice. We can be thankful about that. In 1981, the Institute of Botany in Baku showed in three studies that fluoride caused genetic damage in rats. In 1982, the University of Missouri, Kansas City, showed that fluoride caused genetic damage in a mouse, so unfortunately mice come back into the league of sufferers. In 1983, the Kunming Institute of Zoology, Kunming, in the People's Republic of China showed that fluoride causes genetic damage in deer. In 1984, the Nippon dental university in Tokyo showed that fluoride causes genetic damage in hamsters and embryo cells. Also in 1984 the same university study showed that fluoride causes genetic damage in a human cell culture.
I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will seek to discredit those studies. He may be successful. Nobody would be more satisfied than I if he were to discredit those studies, because they cause me great concern. If my right hon. and learned Friend is not capable of discounting those studies and persuading the House to come round to his view, it would be an act of criminality on his part to allow this Bill to pass into law unamended.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend was asked what effect fluoride had on the teeth of a rat. I ought to draw the attention of my hon. Friend to a document that I have received today, and that he may also have received, from Mr. P. Clavell Blount, who I understand is an expert on the subject. He maintains that fluoride is a valuable rat poison.

Mr. Best: I was unaware that fluoride is a valuable rat poison, so I am now better informed. However, from the evidence I have been given, it appears that that would be a natural consequence.

Mr. Michael Brown: This is no joke. May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to an article which appeared two years ago in The New Scientist. It was written by Mr. Geoffrey Smith, who is an Australian dentist. He suggested that there is a serious risk of fluoride overdose and that fluoride can be harmful, particularly when one looks at the studies on rats which show that
blood ionic fluoride levels of 0·2 parts per million cause dental fluorosis, a serious form of damage to developing tooth cells; and rats are between one-seventh and one-tenth less sensitive to fluoride than humans".

Mr. Best: I shall not comment on that point, because I am not medically qualified. However, my hon. Friend will no doubt have an opportunity to advance his argument.
The Japanese report shows in relation to fluoride that
a potential for carcinogenicity of this chemical, which is widely used by humans, is suggested.
The point is made no more strongly than that and I do not wish to make it any more strongly. However, the concern remains and until that concern is expunged this new clause should form part of the Bill. It would impose a duty upon my right hon. and learned Friend to ensure that the general public were made aware of all these studies and that they were fully debated.
If the Government are so certain of their case, why are they not prepared to debate these matters in full, through the medium of my new clause, which would place a duty upon the Secretary of State to make available all of these studies? No doubt he would pass his own comments upon them. If these studies are disreputable and are not to be believed, is it not right that this fact should be exposed in public rather than that a lurking doubt should be left in the minds of the general public and of hon. Members? That is what will happen if my new clause is not adopted.
An additional study was made by Japanese scientists which shows that fluoride causes DNA damage. It may be that this study can be totally invalidated.

Mr. Fairbairn: What is the definition of DNA?

Mr. Best: If my hon. and learned Friend will forgive me, I shall not go into the question of definitions.
It is possible that this report can be discredited and that no value whatsoever can be attached to it. Why, therefore, should one fear these matters being drawn to the attention of the public in the way that my new clause suggests, with my right hon. and learned Friend making his own comments upon them every 12 months? At least the general public would then be aware of the studies that existed and of the arguments for and against. No right-thinking person could disagree with that proposition. It is right that the matter should be discussed widely in the manner that I suggest rather than left to create lurking fears.
Fluoride accumulates in the human system over a time. That is why no dentist or doctor will say what is a safe dose of fluoride. There is no such thing because fluoride is a poison. One of the problems of the Bill is that people will ingest fluoride for the purposes of mass medication—I know that that is not accepted by some of my hon. Friends — when we do not know the nature, age and physical attributes of the recipient, or the total accumulation in the body of any one recipient.
What kind of medicine is that? We would not know who was getting it or how much they had had before. Fluoride is a poison and is cumulative. Is that what we

shall see in Britain in 1985? We still like to pretend that Britain is a free country where people are not mass medicated against their will.
Contrary to popular opinion, there is no evidence that fluoride in significant quantities is contained in water as a natural constituent element. It is picked up by water as it passes through the land. According to the United States Department of Agriculture Handbook:
Airborn fluorides have caused more world-wide damage to domestic animals than any other air pollutant.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Best: I must not give way. I have given way a number of times to my hon. Friend and I have delayed the House for long enough. In the interests of brevity, I must not give way to my hon. Friend and I hope that he will understand and will forgive me.
In my constituency I have Anglesey Aluminium, a plant which produces aluminium, as the name suggests. It also produces fluoride as a by-product which comes out of the chimney and is spread around the surrounding land. I make no criticism of Anglesey Aluminium because the level of fluoride is closely and effectively monitored. Close care is taken to safeguard the health of people living nearby. I am satisfied with the way that the fluoride is monitored. But that does not alter the effect that fluoride has on various substances around. In a report entitled "The Effects of Industrial Emissions on the Trees at Penrhos, Holyhead" by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Natural Environment Research Council, it was said:
The damage recorded to many trees in the vicinity of the works is typical of that caused by emissions of fluoride, similar damage has been reported near several other fluoride sources and aluminium works around the world. It is not unusual for trees to be killed by fluoride in the immediate vicinity of aluminium works.
Of course, we are talking about levels of fluoride far in excess of anything contemplated in the Bill. The level that is contemplated in the Bill of one part per million will not cause death or anything like that. I would be the last person to make any such suggestions. But I mention that because my new clause requires the Secretary of State to make studies available on the damage to plant and animal life. The general public should be aware of the effect of fluoride, if not on themselves, at least on other substances. It does kill plants and trees and it is a poison. That should be well known to everybody before anyone contemplates the artificial fluoridation of water supplies.
6.45 pm
I said that the levels contemplated in the Bill would not cause damage to human beings which led to death. I am satisfied of that, and I hope that I am right. But I have to be careful about what I say because there are studies which show that that is not true. There are studies which show that there may be cancer links. I put it no higher than that. As I said earlier, I do not want to be accused of scaremongering. But is it not right that those studies should be thoroughly discounted before we have a Bill under which fluoride is added to water supplies?
I referred earlier, in answer to an intervention by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), to what is perhaps the greatest problem. In Committee, my hon and learned Friend the Member for Burton said:
Water authorities know what happened in Annapolis in the United States in November 1979, when it all went wrong. A mistake by a waterworks employee caused the discharge of 1,000 excess gallons of fluoride into the drinking water, increasing its


concentration to 15 times its normal level. As a result, eight patients at a private clinic suffered nausea, vomiting, weakness and a burning sensation in their chests after an hour or so of treatment on their dialysis machines. All were taken off the machines, one patient died and the doctors were at a loss as to what had caused the illness of the dialysis patients. When they learned that a flock of people were going to the hospital suffering from diarrhoea and nausea and that an accident had occurred at the waterworks, one of the local officials said 'We did not want to jeopardise the fluoridation programme'. The authority said that it would never have detected the error of the employee had it not been for the kidney patients on the dialysis machines."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 29 January 1985; c. 17–18.]
I am leaning heavily on the evidence given in Committee on this matter. What answer did my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) give to that serious point about death being caused as a result of a mistake causing more fluoride to be added to the water supply than was intended? He said:
If we look at the Annapolis accident, where one unfortunate patient died during or after dialysis as a result of an excess of fluoride and an excess of aluminium in his body, we find that the reason was that the operator of the dialysis machine was not following the well-laid-down and well established safety precautions and was using totally untreated water. We in this country give very clear instructions that all water must be treated to screen out undesirable elements for those going through the long-drawn-out business of kidney dialysis." — [Official Report, Standing Committee H, 5 February 1985; c. 99.]
I am sure that the Government give clear instructions that all water should be treated to screen out undesirable elements such as fluoride. It was accepted by my hon. Friend that it was undesirable and should not be present in water used by renal dialysis patients. I am sure that the Government use every best endeavour. I would be appalled if they did not. Some people can sustain that argument on the basis that we should not worry about the future because there have been no accidents in the past in Britain. I am sure that this is what the peope of Bhopal said and I am sure that that is what the people of Annapolis, where one person died, said.
That is what people in Britain say now. But I do not expect it to be said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health on behalf of the Government, because that would be irresponsible. The House is charged with the responsibility of safeguarding the health of every citizen in the land. If we fail in that sacred duty, we fail in our duty to ourselves and in our duty as Members of Parliament. All that my new clause seeks to do is to try to put that right.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: When I was induced by my hon. Friend—

Mr. Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have heard one speech on the subject, and a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House want to speak about these important new clauses. By getting to his feet, my right hon. and learned Friend appears to be not prepared to consider further arguments advanced in support of the new clauses. It looks very much as though he is trying to cut off further debate. If he does not want to give that impression, I ask him to sit down so that other hon. Members may make their contributions.

Mr. McGuire: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was asked through the usual channels whether I wished to speak because one or two of my hon. Friends

not presently in the Chamber want to speak. I am here and I have listened to the lucid address of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best). I said that I wished to speak, but was told that the Minister wanted to intervene. I am disappointed at that. I reinforce the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), that all arguments should be heard before the Government move a closure motion.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not need to hear any more points because it is not a question that I can answer. It is not unusual for the Minister to rise after a speech — which, after all, has lasted one hour and 50 minutes—to put a point of view that might possibly be helpful to the debate. That does not cut off the debate.

Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may well be constructive and helpful to the House for my right hon. and learned Friend to put forward his points at this stage. However, it is obvious that other right hon. and hon. Members, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) who has tabled a new clause, wish to speak and, after that, to have a reaction from the Government on the points that they make.
Can you tell the House, Mr. Speaker, whether in the event of my right hon. and learned Friend wishing to catch your eye a second time he would be successful in that endeavour before this matter is put to the vote?

Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks the leave of the House to speak a second time, and the House gives him that leave, he may do so.

Mr. Clarke: I have not yet decided whether to seek the leave of the House to intervene a second time because I have only begun to intervene for the first time. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) is almost a debate in himself. Therefore, I am justified in trying to seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, at this time. During my hon. Friend's speech I was twice drawn to my feet and I commented on his impatience to hear my case in response to the new clauses. I now acquit him of impatience and congratulate him on the comprehensive nature of the case that he presented to the House.
In so far as it was relevant and in order, he touched on some of the arguments raised from time to time in various parts of the world about adding fluoride to water. He felt that the opinion of some of the studies was that that would damage most of the parts of our bodies plus those who inherited our genes, would kill our mice, damage our rats, poison our deer and rot our pipes and sewers. Even given the current controversy in some of the alarmist newspaper reports in this country, I am glad that no study has yet suggested that fluoride can give AIDS to anyone. I suspect that if the debate goes on much longer it will be only a matter of time before that is earnestly suggested.
The new clause was moved eloquently by my hon. Friend. New clause 6 would place an obligation on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make provision for the constant monitoring of the levels of fluoride within all parts of the United Kingdom. I can make one general point in response to that which could be made also about the other new clauses. There is nothing between us in principle about the objectives of the new clauses. It is an important part of the Government's case and the case of


those who approve of fluoride that it is a welcome additive to water provided that it is added at the recommended level of about 1 mg per litre.
Fluoride as a substance taken in large quantities or put in water at a significantly higher level than that is, indeed, undesirable and could even be a dangerous substance. It is extremely important that we continue to ensure—as we have ensured for the past 30 years in this country and as has happened, with the exception of one incident, in every other country where this applies—that fluoride is put into the water at safe levels so that it has the desirable effect, which it undoubtedly has, of reducing dental caries in children and, eventually, the general population without jeopardising people's health or even the health of their pets and rodents.

Mr. Best: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment.
The last time that we debated the matter, and had a brisk debate on the first new clause selected, those hon. Members watching the progress on the television screens accused me of attempting to talk out my own Bill. In my defence, I refer them to Hansard and point out that I gave way on that occasion to my hon. Friends about once every 30 seconds. I shall perhaps be a little less generous on this occasion.

Mr. Best: As my right hon. and learned Friend is his usual generous self, I hope that he will not change his view on giving way, as this is a debate. Is he satisfied that there will never be an accident in which more than the recommended amount of fluoride will be added to the water supply? If he is not satisfied, and if there is an accident, what will he do?

Mr. Clarke: It is, of course, important that I am able to satisfy my hon. Friend on the risks of accident. I cannot simply rely on our extremely good record to date. However, I must point out how that record has been achieved and how we believe that it can be maintained without my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State needing an additional statutory power — indeed, an obligation—to undertake constant monitoring.
As my hon. Friend fairly pointed out, the new clause deals with all water in the United Kingdom — both natural water supplies and those where fluoride has been artificially added—

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I shall give way periodically, but I must be allowed to finish a sentence before doing so.
I begin by dealing with the natural fluoride concentrations in water, which is an important point. All water has fluoride in it; we are talking about the actual level. There are some places, most notably Hartlepool, where the natural level is already at the level to which we propose water authorities should have the power to raise it. All other water has fluoride in it. It is a naturally present ingredient. We are talking about a possible step that could be taken by water authorities to raise the natural level to the level where experience has shown that it has a beneficial effect on the population.
It is right to take a view about natural fluoride concentration. Nowhere in this country is the natural concentration above the recommended level, although that is the case in some other countries. But even the natural fluoride concentrations in this country are periodically

monitored by the water undertaker in areas that are not artificially fluoridated. That has never given rise to great problems because the natural fluoride concentrations do not vary significantly throughout the year. There is no need to place the Secretary of State under a duty constantly to monitor the level. Fluoride exists naturally and has never given rise to any health hazard. It is also present in the earth and the air, so the natural ingestion of fluoride is something that none of us can avoid. There is no need to undertake new, continuous monitoring.

Mr. Marlow: It is accepted that in parts of the country there is a level of fluoride naturally in the water supply, but in those areas there are also other impurities such as magnesium and calcium that counteract the effect of fluoride. If we were to put that level of fluoride into water in parts of the country that do not have it at the moment, at the high level that my right hon. and learned Friend is suggesting and without the other trace elements, there might be effects that have not yet been properly monitored.
My right hon. and learned Friend asked why the Secretary of State for Social Services should be responsible for monitoring. As I understand the new clause, it says nothing about the Secretary of State. It is something that could quite properly be done by the Secretary of State for the Environment. If that were the case, perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend would look at it in a slightly different way.

Mr. Clarke: I shall explain what the monitoring is, where it is relevant — which is where the level in the public water supply is raised by water authorities—and why I do not believe that there is any need for additional monitoring.
I do not know who has misled my hon. Friend about magnesium and calcium counteracting the adverse effect of natural fluoride. I do not accept that there is any scientific case to support his assertions. There is absolutely no harm from the natural level of fluoride in the water in Hartlepool. Indeed, it is the good fortune of the population of Hartlepool to have that level of fluoride in their water, and we are seeking to ensure that water authorities in other parts of the country bring the same benefits to their populations.

Mr. Lawrence: rose—

7 pm

Mr. Clarke: I will not give way until I have developed my speech.
I come to the question of the monitoring of fluoride in the public water supply. It is important that the level of fluoride, where it is raised in the public water supply, should keep as close as is reasonably practicable to the 1 mg per litre level, and we have arrangements for doing that. Those arrangements will, in practice, be strictly adhered to.
Fluoridation in this country is carried our to guidelines laid down by the Water Quality Advisory Committee. For practical reasons, it is not possible to prevent the concentration varying for most of the time between 0·8 and 1·2 mg per litre. The upper limit imposed by the guidelines of the advisory committee is 1·5 mg per litre. That range is entirely acceptable on health grounds and leaves a wide margin of safety.
The guidelines are consistent with the World Health Organisation's recommendations and with the EEC directive relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption. Within those guidelines, the water authorities must take care that the level of fluoride is maintained.
They make sure, therefore, that their staff regularly monitor the water to ensure that it keeps within the guidelines. By the machinery which we use, the fluoride dosing is stopped automatically if it reaches 1·5 mg per litre. The cut-off point is set at less than 1·5 mg per litre in many cases. In a few schemes, regular monitoring is carried out manually and in all cases the fluoride concentrations are continuously recorded by an automatic monitor.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn said that that had worked perfectly well in this country. I trust that he has some confidence in the competence and credibility of the water authorities and agrees that their automatic equipment and fail-safe devices should be regarded as adequate.
My hon. Friend prays in aid one incident which took place at Annapolis in 1979. It is no disrespect to him and those who agree with him to say that a feature of all the arguments adduced against putting extra fluoride in water rely on the statements of obscure, bizarre scientists in odd parts of the world, on curious incidents or, as in this case, on one minor incident on which a great mountain of argument is based, most aspects of which, when examined, do not sustain the argument.
An extremely unfortunate incident occurred at Annapolis in 1979 which caused the fluoride level to rise to 20 times the optimal level. That one incident gave rise to the only case of which I am aware in which a person died, and we have equipment which would make it impossible for that to happen here, because we set the cut-off point at one and a half times the optimal level.
In that case, nobody died among the general population of Annapolis. However, there was an unfortunate incident involving a number of dialysis patients, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn pointed out. One of those subsequently died, not from fluorosis but from cardiac arrest, no doubt because of the unpleasant experience he suffered in respect of the fluoride.
The operator of the kidney dialysis plant on that occasion had not been following the advice of the United States public health service and used untreated tap water in the dialysis machines. In Britain we give the same advice—that dialysis should not be carried out with untreated tap water—the main point being to reduce the aluminium, which is far more dangerous for dialysis patients, and the processes used to remove the aluminium have the effect of lowering the amount of fluoride in the water.
Putting all that together, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn can find, from examining years of experience in every major city throughout the world, only one case—and that was an accident by a water worker—when an individual was killed, and that person died from a heart attack as a result of the unpleasant experience he had had with fluoride. We have equipment in this country to prevent such a massive overdose from

occurring. We also have arrangements to ensure that dialysis patients are not exposed to risk in that way. The points that my hon. Friend makes underline the importance of monitoring. The arrangements that we have had for a long time, in Birmingham and elsewhere, would prevent such an occurrence, and those arrangements can continue to be relied on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn made great play with the suggestion that, somehow, we were trying to keep the practice of monitoring away from the public, and he seemed to suggest that the public would not have access to such material so that they could feel sure that monitoring was occurring. I shall demonstrate how he is wrong. Indeed, we seem to be flooding the world with paper on the subject of fluoride. The trouble is that nobody reads it.
It is possible to have access to the monitoring done by water authorities. Water consumer consultative committees may approach water authorities about the results of monitoring; they have the right to have that information from the authorities. Thus, people can check the records of their water authorities in monitoring the level of fluoride added to the water.
New clause 11 seeks to require the Secretary of State — I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) that the legislation enables the Government to decide that any Secretary of State may carry out the duty that the new clause would impose—to
establish machinery for monitoring the effects of the operation of this Act with particular reference to—

(a) benefit for teeth;
(b) harm to health;
(c) harm to plant and aquatic life

and to report the result of such monitoring to each House of Parliament every 12 months.
I will deal with the general proposition. I believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn said, that the public are entitled to have all the information from the Secretary of State that they require to be reassured and be up to date with information on the benefits to health and the possible harm that may flow from adding fluoride to water.
We in this country have already carried out fluoridation for nearly 30 years. We introduced it here only after close study by an expert team who visited the United States to assess fluoridation schemes already in progress there. That team published its report in 1953. Since then, we have published a vast amount of information both on the benefits to dental health and the results of inquiries into possible risks to health carried out by, or on behalf of, the Government and various public agencies.
We have always kept the evidence on safety under review, and we shall continue to do so. I do not believe that a new statutory duty and requirement for an annual report would add much to all the work that has been done and will continue to be done in this sphere.
The Government have established a research committee to keep the evidence on safety under review. This was done by contracting general practitioners practising, first, in test areas and by having an analysis of the relevant statistical data by means of investigations carried out on sample sections of the public. Their methods and results were set out in two reports which were published by the Stationery Office and which were entitled: "The conduct of fluoridation studies in the United Kingdom and the


results achieved after five years" and another document of the same type but after 11 years. The conclusion of the second report, issued in 1969, stated:
Apart from demonstrating the beneficial effects of fluoridation, the report has confirmed its complete safety. During the 11 years under review, medical practitoners reported only two patients with symptoms which they felt might have been associated with fluoridation. Careful investigation in both cases failed to attribute the symptoms to the drinking of flouridated water.
I shall not delay the House, but I will give some examples of the type of matters that were looked into by the research workers who produced the two reports, which were readily available to the public.
There was a pilot study of urinary fluoride concentration in naturally high-fluoride areas; a pilot survey of consumption of liquids; a dental survey in high-fluoride areas; dental examinations in fluoridated areas; regular inquiries to medical general practitioners in fluoridated areas; scrutiny of vital statistics in high-fluoride areas; specific investigations of the prevalence of osteochondritis juvenalis of the spine, the accumulation of fluoride in bone, the suggested association between malnutrition and dental mottling, the incidence of mongolism, peptic ulcer, and school absenteeism; the size of the thyroid gland in schoolgirls; the incidence of rheumatic disorders in fluoridated areas; and the incidence of osteoperosis in fluoridated areas. I shall not go on, as my hon. Friend did not go on, to burden the House with too much of the detail of his inquiries. I seek to demonstrate the other side of the argument. Government studies have gone into similar obscurities of the kind examined in such detail by my hon. Friend and by other people who have challenged fluoridation.
During the past 30 years a faction of people has sought to establish links between fluoride and various conditions and diseases—some obscure and some not so obscure—and there has been a great deal of research and scientific evidence devoted to knocking all these things down. Every time they are knocked down another idiot idea is raised by a retired dental officer in New Zealand or someone like that and there is considerable trouble taken to challenge that as well.

Mr. Michael Brown: rose—

Mr. Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Clarke: No, I am not giving way. The debate is not yet balanced in terms of time or argument.
To come up to date, the campaign against fluoride helped a lady in Glasgow — I somewhat unfairly described her the other day as toothless; I discover that the jargon in the medical world is non-dentate—to bring an action against the water authority. Lord Jauncey sat for a year hearing all the evidence of leading experts on both sides. This was all at public expense because the good lady had legal aid. A vast amount of evidence was heard by the Scottish judge. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) that a judge is not absolutely the right person always to give an authoritative judgment. I am sure Lord Jauncey had a better opportunity than any of us has had to weigh up the conflicting evidence and come to conclusions. As everyone knows, he came to conclusions on health grounds which were wholly in favour of the policy of putting fluoride in water.

Mr. Michael Brown: rose—

Mr. Clarke: Lord Jauncey was diplomatic in his judgment. Some of the medics who were quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn received rather harsh treatment at the hands of Lord Jauncey when he described what he finally decided was the quality of their work.

Mr. Fairbairn: The people will hardly be reassured if my right hon. and learned Friend, who is not even a judge yet, dismisses scientific research as idiotic because it does not happen to agree with his argument. Surely we are entitled to better than that.

Mr. Clarke: There has been a suggestion that all the pipes will rot. After 30 years no one has discovered any problems with the copper piping in Birmingham or anywhere else. This reference was based on an incident that happened in Seattle of which, so far as we can find out, the American water authorities were completely unaware. My hon. Friend immediately dismissed the American water authorities, which are responsible for the public water supply in America, as being misguided.

Mr. Michael Brown: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I shall give way to my hon. Friend at some point.
The latest work which the Government commissioned has just been produced—a report by a body of leading epidemiologists chaired by Professor Knox entitled "Fluoridation of Water and Cancer". It is a comprehensive review of the epidemiological evidence which I quoted on Second Reading. Its conclusion is that no link has been established between cancer and the addition of fluoride to the water.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn was fair when he pointed out that he had time to present only one side of the case. But what happens when the Government respond to the constant desire and pressure to give more public information is that those who are convinced that they do not want fluoride in the water do not take the slightest notice of what the Government do. We spent a great deal of time and public money on the work of leading epidemiologists. They produced a study which is available to the public at the price of £6·70 from Her Majesty's Stationery Office. So far I do not think that any opponent has made the slightest reference to it. Indeed, from everything they say it is obvious that none of them has bothered to open its cover. They are prepared to rely, as I said, on a retired dental officer from Auckland—

Mr. Michael Brown: rose—

Mr. Clarke: —about whom I have heard half a dozen times already, on letters in the "Kilmarnock Bugle" and on obscure evidence of campaigns against fluoride in America.

Mr. Michael Brown: My right hon. and learned Friend has worried me and many of my hon. Friends by the statement that he has just made. In the House of Commons Library I have read in an eminent magazine, New Scientist, an article entitled "Fluoridation — Are the Dangers Resolved?" which says:
Fluoride is now added to drinking water to protect teeth and Australian dentists now suggest that there is a serious risk of overdose.
I expect my right hon. and learned Friend, a Government Minister, to take an article of that kind seriously. I was


greatly upset to hear that any article that might appear in a magazine of the eminence of New Scientist dismissed airily in an arrogant and unreasonable way.

Mr. Clarke: I confess that I have not read that article. My hon. Friend has probably never read the Knox report. That article appears to use phrases such as "Australian dentists now suggest". Before it is taken seriously, someone should ask for the identity of the Australian dentists and for the basis on which they made the suggestion. Apparently it referred to the dangers of an overdose. Of course there is a danger of overdose; mottling becomes serious when the level of fluoride is twice that recommended and people may be killed if they are given enough fluoride. At 1 mg per litre health authorities not only in this country but in many countries throughout the world are satisfied that it is safe and efficacious.

Mr. McGuire: rose—

Mr. Clarke: We are monitoring, and we will continue to review the evidence. If my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) says that we should address ourselves to articles in New Scientist, we will do so. But when it comes to the suggestion of a new statutory duty, it is plain that we have spared no efforts, no public expense and no pains in reviewing the evidence, and we will continue to do so.

Mr. McGuire: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I do not believe we need an annual report or that we need to start examining the harm to plant and acquatic life, which no one has established anywhere, which is hardly surprising because fluoride is naturally present in the sea at a concentration of about 1 mg per litre. Therefore, I trust that all those who oppose the Bill do not go swimming when they visit the seaside because they will expose themselves to what they regard as a dangerous concentration of fluoride.

Mr. McGuire: I wanted to intervene when the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to other countries. Why does he think that other countries abandoned their schemes? Did they not have the same duty as the right hon. and learned Gentleman? Does he not think that they abandoned their schemes because they had doubts, apart from the principle of mass medication?

Mr. Clarke: The same argument has gone on in most countries where fluoride has been added to the water. I accept that in some countries it has been maintained more vigorously. I well remember meeting the Minister of Health for Ireland who could not understand all the fuss in this country because the Irish Parliament had just passed, with the minimum of opposition, legislation to make fluoridation compulsory. Sweden is the only country of which I am aware that has gone the way the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire) suggested. Other countries have arguments about written constitutions that do not apply here but in large parts of the United States, in the Soviet Union and in many other developed countries fluoride is added.

Mr. Jessel: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the House that the Royal College of Physicians, the

highest medical academic body in the country, studied the matter fully a few years ago and produced a comprehensive report vindicating completely the fluoridation of water to prevent dental decay in children? Why should this House pay less attention to the Royal College of Physicians than to some chap who writes an article in New Scientist or an obscure American when the opinions of all those people have been weighed at great length by Lord Jauncey and found wanting?

Mr. Clarke: No royal college or reputable body of medical or dental opinion in this country is against the adding of fluoride to water. I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. and learned Friend include the British Medical Association as one of those reputable bodies? What is its view?

Mr. Clarke: The BMA is a formidable trade union on behalf of the medical profession. I have not consulted it on its views on fluoride. I have been too busy consulting it with great assiduity on other matters. I refer to the royal colleges and those responsible for medical standards.
New clause 18 provides:
If at any time it appears to the Secretary of State that the addition of fluoride to the water supply is harmful to health he shall terminate any application made under section 1(1).
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross, who pointed out to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ynys Môn the defects in the drafting of the new clause which has already led the Chair to say that it would not be suitable to allow a Division on it.
A helpful note has been passed to me by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibilities for health that the BMA is in favour of fluoridation and has said so. On that basis I am happy to add the BMA to my list of organisations which are in favour of adding fluoride to our water supplies.
New clause 18 would require my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to terminate any application made under the appropriate section. It is clear that my hon. Friend believes that if at any stage in our copious investigations it appears, even in the opinion of unrepentant sinners such as myself, that there is serious doubt about the safety of adding fluoride to water supplies, the fluoride should be withdrawn. Whatever the defects of the new clause, I agree that that should be so.
I do not agree that there is a serious risk that any health authority would defy health evidence of the sort that I have postulated and would continue adding fluoride to the water supply in its area. Following the judgment of the Lord Jauncey, Stranraer, in the Strathclyde region, immediately withdrew fluoride from the water in its area. We would expect water authorities and health authorities to combine to ensure that fluoride was withdrawn the moment that any serious doubt was raised. If there were any hesitation on the part of a health authority, I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have the necessary powers to issue a direction. In such circumstances, I am sure that he would issue a directive to ensure that fluoride was withdrawn. That would certainly be done if it appeared that there were certainly doubts about safety.
It is unfortunate that in this instance my hon. Friend and I are dividided on the merits of the issue. However, the Bill is merely proposing that water authorities should be


empowered to add fluoride to their water supplies on the application of health authorities. The issue will be resolved eventually in practice by local authorities consulting public opinion throughout the country. It will not be resolved in this place.
I agree with the arguments and aims behind all of the three new clauses which have been tabled by my hon. Friend. I hope that I have satisfied him that we shall ensure that levels of fluoride are monitored and maintained. Indeed, health authorities will ensure that that happens. They will continue to monitor all the evidence, including that which is beneficial and any claimed adverse effects on health. We would act promptly to ensure that fluoride was withdrawn if ever the evidence changed. I realise that my hon. Friend will not be too satisfied with my reply, but I hope that in the light of the undertakings that I have given he will accept that there is not the greatest division over the details in the Bill between the Government and himself.

Mr. Dobson: It may be helpful or unhelpful if I intervene now. I find myself in the curious position of supporting generally the case advanced by the Minister for Health. It is not my normal relationship—

Mr. Best: Creep! Sycophant!

Mr. Dobson: —with the Government Front Bench. However, I differ from him in my view of the three new clauses before us. New clause 6 requires the Secretary of State to make provision for the constant monitoring of the levels of fluoride in water supplies throughout the United Kingdom. Given what the right hon. Gentleman does most of the time—for example, attempting to ruin the National Health Service, destroying social services and tearing the social security system to pieces—a new clause that required him personally to go with a plastic bucket to take samples from every river, water course, lake and reservoir would be seen by me as a proposal that would be of benefit to the nation's health. Unfortunately, we do not have that proposition before us.
It is clear from the Minister's explanation that our arrangements for monitoring what goes into water supplies are considerably superior to those that apply in most other parts of the world. That is one of the reasons why the standard of control and cleanliness of our public water supply has been a source of envy to many other countries. I hope that it will continue to be so. It is only recently that citizens of a number of countries have been able, because of an improvement in public water supplies, to stop drinking Perrier water from bottles.
Some of those who wish to see special monitoring of fluoride levels in water seem to forget the myriad of chemicals that are introduced into our water supply. Apparently this is done with the full approval of certain Conservative Members. However, they seek to distinguish between fluoride and other chemicals. I am not aware that anyone has suggested that the amount of chlorine that goes into our water is unsatisfactory. There is no evidence that the arrangements for monitoring the amount of fluoride in water are in any way inferior to the arrangements for monitoring chlorine levels.

Mr. Fairbairn: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will inform the House what are included in the myriad of substances that are added to water. I do not know what "myriad" means, but presumably it involves many

substances. Is he so stupid and prejudiced that he cannot see the difference between making water fit to drink by adding chlorine and making it a form of medicine for some, perhaps, and forcing everyone else to drink it? Can he not see the difference?

Mr. Dobson: I was attempting to address myself to the clauses before the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman approves of monitoring of substances that go into water of which he approves, and that principle and the principle of monitoring a substance of which he disapproves are exactly the same. If he cannot recognise that, he is even more stupid than he thinks I am.

Mr. Fairbairn: That would be difficult.

Mr. Dobson: I am a supporter of adding fluoride to our water. I believe that it benefits children by going a long way towards abolishing child toothache. That seems to be a good idea. I speak as someone who suffered from it, and my children have suffered from it from time to time. However, I cannot understand why the Minister is not prepared to accept new clause 11, or something on its lines. If the benefits that have flowed from the introduction of fluoride into Birmingham's water supply had been reiterated year after year in annual reports, that would have helped convince those who have genuine and legitimate doubts about the benefits of fluoride and concern about potential harm from adding fluoride to water supplies. That would have been to the benefit of the truth and that would have been the result if the Government had undertaken regular monitoring. It would be beneficial if the Government would accept new clause 11 or something similar.
I am convinced that the evidence provided by the monitoring will sustain the case that dental health will improve greatly as a result of fluoridation. It will produce no harm to general health and no significant harm to plant and aquatic life. I am convinced that that is so, and if the Minister is equally convinced he should welcome the opportunity to churn out every year a report that will bolster, strengthen and help progress the case for introducing fluoride into the water supply. I hope that the Minister will listen to this argument and to those which will be adduced by the opponents of fluoride. Of course, there is only a small number of Members present who are in favour of putting fluoride into water supplies. Nevertheless, I hope that he will listen to our arguments and come to the conclusion that there is some strength in the proposition that he should accept new clause 11 or something on its lines.
I understand Mr. Speaker's ruling that the drafting of new clause 18 is so far off the mark that it is not worth putting the clause to a vote. I am aware that Conservative Members are strongly in favour of the Government forcing through the privatisation of ancillary staff activity in the NHS. Apparently they support the Government's action in issuing directives and instruments in writing which health authorities cannot ignore. If they accept that they must accept also that instruments instructing health authorities to desist immediately from their involvement in adding fluoride to water supplies, should there ever be evidence that the practice is damaging to the nation's health, should be acted upon by the authorities. It is fairly clear that the Government have powers already to stop fluoride being added to water and that the Secretary of State, should he desire, could implement them.

Mr. Best: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way. He claims that the new clause is defective—

Mr. Dobson: Not I, but the Secretary of State.

Mr. Best: Well, the hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that it might be defective. Clause 1(2) states:
For the purpose of section (1) above, an application shall remain in force until the health authority, after giving reasonable notice to the statutory water undertaker in writing, withdraw it.
Therefore, the application remains in force. In those circumstances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand why I drafted a new clause stating that the application should be terminated. After all, the Bill states that the application remains in force.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman should not address that point to me. If he disputes whether the new clause is insufficiently well drafted that it merits being put to the vote, he should raise that matter with Mr. Speaker as it was he who ruled it out on the ground that its drafting was unsatisfactory. I do not know the particular in which it was unsatisfactory, but a further reason for not debating it at length is that it is unnecessary. The Secretary of State has the necessary powers to do what the hon. Gentleman wishes without a change in the law. If hon. Members think about it, they will have to accept that.
The House should not support new clause 6, but it should support new clause 11 or a promise from the Minister that his noble colleagues in the other place will introduce a similar new clause. It appears that we shall not be bothered with a vote on new clause 18.

Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) for supporting new clause 11. As he will see, it is an all-party new clause, and it gains in strength from that. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is a supporter of fluoridation. He always supports it because he knows of no evidence or persuasive arguments to the contrary.
In his brief but otherwise welcome speech the hon. Gentleman referred to harm to aquatic life. I refer him to that part of new clause 11 which deals with that as a harm which results from fluoridation of the water. I wish to bring to his attention, perhaps for the first time, reasonably convincing evidence of the harm that is done to aquatic and plant life, or may be being done. I say that because we are talking about introducing into our waterways and drinking water something which in substantial amounts is known to be a deadly poison. Therefore, any question of doubt about its safety is one which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would wish to see resolved in favour of those who are opposed to it, rather than in favour of those who wish to inflict this poison upon us.
There is a lot of evidence of the effect on plant and aquatic life, but I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to an investigation which was conducted as recently as 1979 by the Quebec Government committee of inquiry. It was set up by the Minister of the Environment for Quebec. This was not a committee of nuts, but a committee of experts. It said:
The accumulation of fluorides in aquatic plants and fauna is a very important phenomenon because of its potential impact on all animals consuming these organisms. Recent studies suggest that the concentration of fluorides along the food chain is certainly not less than 10 to one. The information available has shown that, at the level of 1.9 parts per million, fluorides lower the rate of growth of the green algae `Chlorella' which is an

important link in the food chain. It is also known that several aquatic plants can easily accumulate fluorides at levels which exceed by far the level reached by their environment".
It went on to say:
Fishes and other aquatic species tend to accumulate fluorides in their body mainly within the skeleton and the exoskeleton. These accumulations may be very important according to different species. Furthermore, in the case of certain organisms (for example the crab) this accumulation may be responsible for lowering the rate of growth with a corresponding loss of weight and reduction of size of the individual. In other cases, such as the frog, the embryonic development of their eggs is delayed when they are submitted to a concentration of 1 part per million of fluorides. Similar effects are observed when tadpoles (larvae of the frog) are exposed. For certain species of fish, we can observe the noxious effects of fluorides on the eggs exposed to levels of 1.5 parts per million of fluorides. More specifically, the eggs of trout do not hatch when they are exposed to concentrations of 1.5 parts per million of fluorides".
The committee concluded:
Although there is a lack of information regarding the effects of the accumulation of fluorides along the food chains, there is enough evidence to conclude that the actual presence of fluorides above certain levels in the aquatic environment is causing important biological damages to both plant and animal systems".
That committee recommended an indefinite moratorium on the fluoridation of water in the province, and that was immediately put in hand.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras can say that he knows of no evidence. I am sure that he will forgive me for saying so, but if there were, a conflict between us, I would prefer to accept the evidence of an official committee of experts, set up by a properly formulated and responsible Government, than the opinion of the hon. Gentleman—I hope that he will not be insulted—when he has clearly not advised himself of the conclusions of that important report.

Mr. Fairbairn: My hon. and learned Friend has quoted from a report published in 1979. Research was carried out in Renfrewshire up to 1983 on plants such as lettuces and on the development of seeds and tomato plants. The capacity of the seeds to germinate, grow and to produce fruit is depressed if fluoride in the water in parts less than one part per million is fed to them.

Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, as ever. That is additional information. I did not seek to delay the proceedings of the House by referring to all the available information on the subject, but I thought that by citing one responsible and authoritative report that would show conclusively that harm may be caused to plants and aquatic life, as a result of which it is that much more important for the water to be monitored.
No hon. Member has a higher regard than I have for the advocacy and powers of advocacy of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health. In a gust of laughter he sought to brush out of the way many years of concern by many people. That is the advocate's art, and those who wish to see the advocate's art at its best will come not to hear my speech but to hear and read the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend.
It is all very well to joke about these matters, but we are not talking about things that do not matter. We are talking about things that affect life, pain and suffering.

Mrs. McCurley: Like toothache.

Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend says, "Like toothache", and that of course must enter into these considerations. It is not enough to laugh these matters away. It is no joke if people are dying of cancer as a result


of drinking fluoridated water. There is at least one study, the most thorough epidemiological study ever undertaken, which comes to the conclusion that 10,000 people are dying of cancer every year in the United States of America as a result of drinking fluoridated water.
It is not a laughing matter if our children grow up with mottled teeth. Mottled teeth are not only an embarrassment, but are the first signs of dental fluorosis—that is, the dental poisoning that comes from drinking fluoride. The harm that has been done to the development of teeth has been well investigated and set out by a large number of very authoritative dentists, dental surgeons and dental investigators.
My right hon. and learned Friend referred to Hartlepool, where there is natural fluoridation in excess of one part per million. The proportion of youngsters there suffering from mottled teeth is very substantial. The evidence shows that one in five of the children who drink Hartlepool's fluoridated water have some degree of mottling of the teeth. That does not seem to me to be a laughing matter.

Mrs. McCurley: Tetracycline.

Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend has not stopped muttering since the moment I got to my feet. Of course I shall give way to my hon. and beautiful Friend in a moment. I know that she is very much in favour of fluoridation and that she is married to a gentleman who is even more in favour of it. I always listen to what she has to say with great interest and concern, and I shall now sit down and give her an opportunity to articulate more loudly her mutterings of the past five minutes.

Mrs. McCurley: What studies have there been in connection with the lettuces in Hartlepool? If there are obviously lettuces in Renfrewshire which were fed with fluoridated water, have they in any way suffered? I have never heard of anything like that.
Secondly, will my hon. and learned Friend also consider the point that I made previously about antibiotics like tetracycline having an effect on children's teeth? It may be that the doctors in Hartlepool prescribed antibiotics to children at an early age and caused the mottling about which my hon. Friend is talking.

Mr. Lawrence: Unfortunately, the words, "I have never heard of anything like that," do not mean that such a thing has not been said or that such work is not being carried out. However, it would not surprise me if the work had not yet been carried out, because the medical and scientific people who carry out this kind of work have probably not yet got around to Hartlepool's lettuce. When I was on the Select Committee on Social Services—one of the most distinguished members of which, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), is listening avidly to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench — we looked into preventative medicine. We received a submission from a lecturer from Liverpool, Mr. Tolley, who warned us that the work he was doing on the effect of fluoride on watercress led him to the conclusion, which he wanted to share with the Committee at the earliest possible moment, that the accumulation of fluorides in watercress indicated a very high level of danger indeed to the food chain. It may be that that was Liverpool's watercress, and it may be that that gentleman and others will soon get round to Hartlepool's lettuce.
I wish merely to rely upon the much more all-embracing conclusions of the Quebec departmental committee to make the point — and I do not want to spend too long on plant and aquatic life—that there is a very real danger to plant and aquatic life from fluoridated water.

Mr. Marlow: Perhaps I could take my hon. and learned Friend off plant and aquatic life, which is important to the food chain and, thus, to human beings, and bring us back to human beings. My right hon. and learned Friend said that there had been fluoride in the water for some 30 years and that there was no evidence that this had caused any damage to human health. My right hon. and learned Friend is the Minister for Health, and as such he is responsible for the drugs issued to humans. He will know, and my hon. and learned Friend will know, that before a drug goes on the market it is subjected to an exhaustive process lasting many years before being validated for human consumption. Even when that has been done—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is developing into a speech. Will he be brief, please?

Mr. Marlow: I am just coming to the burden, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that my hon. and learned Friend is aware of what I am going to say.
Ten, 11 or 12 years after that scrutiny, we discover that there is something badly wrong with those drugs which have been allowed and have been consumed for a considerable period of time. Drugs have to be taken only if a person has something wrong with him. Water is something that we must all drink. Is it not much more dangerous that we are doing something with the water supply and we do not really know what the outcome will be?

Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting far more felicitously than I could a point which I had intended to make later in my speech. Now I do not have to make it.
My hon. Friend touched on something which reminded me that I had not properly dealt with the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley). She asked me about tetracyclines. It may be that antibiotics helped to cause the mottled effect on the teeth—we do not know—but if the mottled effect is caused, whether by tetracyclines or by any other antibiotics, as a result of drinking fluoridated water, does that not make the case of those of us who are opposed to it that much stronger, because there is not just the effect of fluoride but the effect of tetracyclines, which are widely used throughout the country?
If people were to think that any danger, or even discolouration of their teeth which they do not believe will lead to danger, was the result of antibiotics plus water fluoridated at one part per million, the public would not want it. That is why many people feel strongly that the kind of intervention which my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde made is not very helpful to her cause.
I come back to the point which I was making before those interventions, about the joking approach of my right hon. and learned Friend. People dying of cancer have nothing to joke about. People with mottled teeth have


nothing to joke about. People who have kidney diseases which may be adversely affected by drinking fluoridated water would not find it funny. People with allergies would not find it funny. There is a list of very distinguished scientists throughout the world who have documented the allergic effects on some individuals of fluoridated water at one part per million. Diabetics who may be affected by drinking fluoridated water would not think it very funny. Those with thyroid abnormalities who might be affected by drinking fluoridated water would not consider it a laughing matter. Women who are on the pill who might be adversely affected by drinking fluoridated water would not think it a joke, any more than arthritics who may be harmed by drinking it would think it one.
Despite all the miracles of modern science, we still do not know why children die in cot deaths within the first year of their birth. I am not saying that I have any evidence on that subject, but in a moment I shall show how the fluoridation of water could possibly affect children in the first year of life. Furthermore, pregnant women who might be adversely affected by drinking fluoridated water, and people with heart disease, would not think the matter very funny. I do not suppose that there are many Conservative Members who think that the loss of individual freedom that is involved in fluoridation is a laughing matter.
Thus, although we were greatly amused by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister, and although it was a great feat of advocacy to laugh our opposition out, on cool reflection the joke will not be found to be funny by many people who may be adversely affected by drinking such water. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) asked my right hon. and learned Friend why so many countries had given up fluoride if this was such a hilariously funny matter and if it was possible to blow out of the way the evidence of tens of scientists around the world who have studied the evil effects of fluoridation.
I am afraid that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has been imperfectly briefed once again. He said that Sweden was the only country that had given up fluoride. I hope that he will not mind if I draw his attention to the position in other countries. An investigation that took place in November 1978 was told that Austria would not carry out fluoridation—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When remarks are being addressed directly to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health, should he not do the House the courtesy of returning to the Front Bench and listening to what is being said? I am sure that the debate will go on for much longer, because there is much evidence to be advanced, but if he were present now, at the end of it he would at least be in a position to give some answers instead of merely making jokes in response to the extremely cogent case being advanced.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I think that the Minister has responded by returning to his place.

Mr. Lawrence: I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for returning. I did not think that he was doing me any discourtesy. As he is convinced that there is no evidence that fluoridation is bad and that people want it in their water supplies, it must be

difficult for him to hear the harsh truths that we are trying to put his way. It is perhaps more than the human frame can stand to hear me pushing harsh truths in his direction.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It seems to be thought that I had somehow left the House during the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), but I was six in from the end of the Front Bench, consulting those in the Box who advise me. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that his voice is penetrating and that his advocacy is clear, and I was following his points with the closest interest, without the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).

Mr. Lawrence: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I hope that he will not be insulted when I say that I had rather hoped he was telling off his civil servants who have obviously briefed him so inadequately about the responses of other countries. I shall tell him what the responses were to a very thorough inquiry. Countries were asked what the fluoridation situation was. Austria said that there was no fluoridation and that it would not be carried out. Belgium said that there was no fluoridation and that one small fluoridation plant had now been discontinued. Chile said that it had no fluoridation. It was fluoridated in 1953, but discontinued it in 1977, after 24 years, as the result of a professor's work, which showed that it was harmful.
Denmark said that it had no fluoridation and that it was forbidden by law in food and water. Egypt said that there was no fluoridation and that American pressure to fluoridate had been rejected. Finland said that there had been one small experimental plant since 1959, involving only 1·5 per cent. of the total population. Twenty years later no further plant had been installed. France had no fluoridation and said that the Government did not allow fluoridation as safety had not been sufficiently proved.
Portugal had one small experimental plant still in operation. I have already read out the report of the province of Quebec. Scientists visiting Russia report no evidence of artificial fluoridation there. After 33 years of experimenting on people, less than 40 per cent. of the American populating are fluoridated and hundreds of cities are giving up fluoridation.

Mr. Marlow: My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister was disagreeing with my hon. and learned Friend about the Soviet Union, and seemed to be praying it in aid as if it had fluoridation.

Mr. Lawrence: I want to try to keep my remarks within reasonable bounds, and have been tempted to go into the matter in detail only because I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister would want me to give chapter and verse in reply to something that was perhaps said in jest — it shows the danger of saying something in jest—about Sweden being the only country to give up fluoride. Sweden is not the only country to give up fluoride. In Australia, compulsory fluoridation legislation Acts have been passed in the states of Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania. The decision artificially to fluoridate in other states is made by local authorities.
About 10 per cent. of Great Britain is artificially fluoridated. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister keeps talking about the proportion of Britain that is naturally fluoridated, but fewer than 500,000 people in this country drink naturally fluoridated water. The average


level of fluoride in the water is so low that to top it up to one part per million would require a tenfold increase in the amount of fluoride. So when my right hon. and learned Friend refers lightly to "just topping up", as if we were just putting a little cream on top of the milk without anyone noticing, it should be borne in mind that we are talking about a tenfold increase in areas where there is natural fluoridation.
West Germany has no fluoridation. It was discontinued in 1971, after 18 years of continuous use, for "health and legal considerations." Greece has no fluoridation and no programmes have ever been introduced. In Holland there is no fluoridation, as it was discontinued in 1976 after 23 years of experiments involving 9,800,000 people. By royal decree, all permissions to fluoridate were cancelled. India and Italy have no fluoridation. Japan has no fluoridation, and the Government do not favour or encourage it. In Luxembourg there is no fluoridation and it is said:
The method is a naive utopia without practical effect".
Norway has no fluoridation, and legislation designed to make fluoridation compulsory was rejected by the Norwegian Parliament in 1975. Sweden has no fluoridation and it is forbidden by law. It was discontinued in 1969 after 10 years of artificial fluoridation. The World Health Organisation was asked by the Swedish Medical Board to produce evidence to support the WHO's claim that fluoridation was safe. No evidence was ever produced, and Parliament declared fluoridation illegal on 18 November 1971.
Switzerland has had one experimental city since 1959, involving only 4 per cent. of the total population. In December 1975 the health department of Basle advised the Baselstadt city council to stop fluoridation because of its ineffectiveness.
I do not know how a Minister, who proposes both fluoridation and to allow water authorities to force the population by mass medication to drink fluoridated water, and who is faced with the evidence that practically every other country in western Europe except Eire does not have it, does not want it or has rejected it, can come to the Dispatch Box and say that only Sweden is opposed to fluoridation.

Mr. Marlow: It is mind-boggling.

8 pm

Mr. Lawrence: If that is the level of intelligence that informs my right hon. and learned Friend, who has great abilities, the mind must tremble in fear at the prospect of a Government who feel that all my evidence is of no interest, no avail and no purport.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I named Sweden, and having listened to my hon. and learned Friend, I believe that that is still the case. Sweden is the only place where a parliamentary vote has reversed a fluoridation scheme which had previously been enacted. In one or two other countries there have been doubts about the constitutional grounds. There are 40 countries in five different continents where fluoridation is practised. As my approach to the debate is a little more succinct than that of my hon. and learned Friend, I hope that he will forgive me if I do not name them all.

Mr. Lawrence: I am afraid that I must beg to doubt that. Although I have not covered all the countries of the

globe, I have covered all countries in western Europe. There is no evidence from the countries that I have listed that they are grabbing at fluoridation as fast as they can for its beneficial and safe effects.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will forgive me if I do not stay, because I have to leave to address a meeting about fluoridation. Has the Council of Europe ever been asked to pronounce on the matter? If not, as he knows, the House is represented on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, it might be useful to see whether it supports the rather strange argument that mass medication should be imposed on a democracy. Will my hon. and learned Friend think of suggesting to our representatives on the health committee of the Council of Europe that the subject should be investigated?

Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, until recently, was a Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security, and has also served at the Department of the Environment. It is clear from his intervention that he has considerable doubts whether it is good sense to fluoridate our water. It is encouraging to know that men of his experience have those doubts, and it is discouraging to me that he is no longer able to influence the Government in making a decision. He is welcome as a supporter of all hon. Members who oppose fluoridation. Is my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) aspiring to become a Minister?

Mr. Marlow: My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has just said that there are 40 countries in which fluoridation takes place. Would it be in order for my hon. and learned Friend to ask our right hon. and learned Friend to do the House the honour of attaching the names of those countries to the Official Report so that we can have that information?

Mr. Lawrence: Those who read the Official Report tomorrow will see listed the countries that I mentioned, and perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will respond to my hon. Friend's invitation.
My right hon. and learned Friend sought to pour scorn on hon. Members who are in favour of the new clauses, which merely provide for monitoring so that the British people can be reassured that there is not too high a proportion of this poison entering their water supplies. That does not seem to be a bizarre request. I shall deal with two points that he raised.
My right hon. and learned Friend berated us for not referring to the Knox report. He said that it looked as though the Knox report had not even been opened. That was a trifle patronising, because some people have spent a long time trying to read it, to see what light it throws on these matters. My right hon. and learned Friend will not wish to make an unfair point. The Knox report was published on 31 December 1984, and therefore has been available only for the past four weeks. Scientists take longer than four weeks to come to sensible and properly worked out conclusions. However, we have already received some preliminary conclusions.
I have received an open letter from Dean Burk, who is the leading anti-fluoridationist of the Western world. He has been much maligned by those who have not bothered to find out his antecedents. For 35 years that now elderly and highly respected gentleman was the chief cyto-chemist


for the National Cancer Institute of America. When someone with that amount of experience and knowledge about fluoride and cancer produces a report, it must be listened to. He and Mr. John Yiamouyiannis were responsible for the report, which was first produced in 1975, and was given to the Royal College of Physicians to analyse. The college did not do so before it reported in February 1976.
Since then, the report has been constantly under attack from pro-fluoridationists throughout the world. Nevertheless, the 10 largest American cities where there was fluoridation were analysed for cancer deaths, as were the 10 largest American cities without fluoridation. The two men did what no one else seems to have done in epidemiological studies — that is, they investigated the position before fluoridation. Often the flaw in the fluoridation argument is that, because something has happened since fluoridation, it must have happened because of fluoridation, and that because there has been an improvement, it must be because of fluoridation. Frequently, the position before fluoridation is not considered.
Burk and Yiamouyiannis decided that, although there was a gradual increase, as one would expect, in the 20 largest American cities — for 18 years they studied the fluoridation effects, and for five years they studied the cities when neither group of cities had artificial fluoridation — the cancer death rate was roughly comparable. In the 18 years after fluoridation, the cancer death rate in the fluoridated cities rose significantly. They conclude that it costs 10,000 lives of American citizens a year.
That report has been attacked. When Burk and Yiamouyiannis tried to answer the attack, the ostriches buried their heads in the sand. During an Adjournment debate I warned the Minister that I was about to tell him how the survey had been weighted for age, race and sex and not to reply by saying that that was not the case. I made my speech and the Minister said that the trouble with the survey was that it had not been weighted for age, race and sex. That is what his adviser wrote into his speech. It took a long time before the Department of Health and Social Security admitted that the figures had been weighted for age, race and sex. They are again examined by the Knox report, and I can say only that the argument is about how to standardise mortality death ratios. One group does it one way, and the other group does it another, and each believes that its method is correct. If we sweep that away and say, "A plague on both your houses; never mind how you examine the standardised mortality ratios, just consider the broad figures," we discover, whichever way one looks at it, a substantial increase in cancer deaths in the 10 American cities that have been fluoridated during those 18 years.
Let me read from the open letter that comments upon the Knox report — we were taken to task for not referring to it, so I feel emboldened to refer to it now—from Dean Burk dated 10 February 1985:
With or without standardising adjustments for the factors age, sex, and race, there is a large increase in the cancer death rate trends in the ten largest fluoridated American central cities compared to an equivalent, matched ten cities that were not fluoridated. The increase amounted to 31·5 excess cancer deaths per 100,000 population over the period of 1950 to 1970 in the unadjusted data, and after standardisation adjustment by

conventional methods, the adjusted excess still amounted to the large value of 21·8 cancer deaths per 100,000 population over the period of 1950 to 1970. In short, standardising adjustments for age, sex, and race reduced the observed cancer death rate trends by only 30·8 (not 100) per cent., leaving 69·2 per cent. thereof ascribable to artificial fluoridation clearly harmful to human health in terms of increased cancer mortality alone.
If all the critics of our system of assessing mortality rates are right, we should sweep the figures away and simply talk about the bald facts, which show that there has been a significant increase in cancer deaths in the fluoridated American cities.
The evidence is not limited to that, because we have examples in England. Birmingham has been fluoridated since 1964, and it has experienced a substantial increase in cancer deaths. Compared with Manchester, where the cancer death rate was roughly the same as that in Birmingham, before fluoridation there has been an 8·2-fold increase in the cancer deaths in Birmingham compared with a 1·5-fold increase in cancer deaths in Manchester during the same period.
Those who say that fluoridation is perfectly safe say that the evidence is a load of rubbish. But the bald figures show, however one weights them, an excess of cancer deaths in fluoridated Birmingham compared with non-fluoridated Manchester.
I do not know who is right, and I have never tried to decide who is right. I merely say that if leading men of integrity, science and eminence have two conflicting views on the safety of fluoridation, why do the Government side with those who arrogantly deny, in the face of all the evidence, that there is evidence to the contrary? If there is doubt among leading antagonists on both sides, the British public must be entitled not to have the doubt resolved by forcing this stuff into their mouths every time they drink water.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I trust that my hon. and learned Friend does not wish to cause needless alarm in Birmingham. The Government did not side with either group about cancer rates in Birmingham. We commissioned a comprehensive study by epidemiologists, which is the Knox report to which I referred. My hon. and learned Friend has done his homework thoroughly, so he will have read chapter 7 of the report, which concentrates on Birmingham and Anglesey. The conclusion, after weighing up all the evidence, is as follows:
The examination of cancer rates for up to fourteen years after fluoridation in Birmingham, and up to eighteen years after fluoridation in Anglesey, and the investigation of cancer rates in areas with various levels of naturally occurring fluoride, provide substantial reassurance concerning the safety of fluoridation in respect of cancer. All statements to the contrary were based on errors.
Those errors are carefully analysed in the report.

Mr. Lawrence: I shall deal with those errors in a moment, but I wish to read to the House Dr. Burk's conclusion about Birmimgham. He said:
Upon fluoridation of the Birmingham public water supply in October, 1964, its population of approximately one million showed one of the most abrupt documentable increases in observed cancer death rate of any large city in the world—far greater than reported for any non-fluoridated English city such as Liverpool, Leeds, Bristol, Manchester, Coventry, Bradford, Sheffield, Greater London, etc., or for any of 20 previously studied large American cities whether fluoridated or not.
The errors to which my right hon. and learned Friend alluded were the failure to weight age, race and sex. The


proposition is simple. If one takes an older population, there is obviously a higher tendency for them to die of cancer. Therefore, age is a factor that must be weighted into the figures. Race must also be weighted into the figures, say some people, because, for one reason or another, since black people tend to concentrate in urban areas, whether there is a higher proportion of blacks in an area is a significant factor. I do not follow that argument, and experts doubt whether that is a reasonable criticism. However, it is one that is made. As for sex, if an area has a higher proportion of women, who are less prone to cancer, that is another distorting feature that must be taken into account.
All that I can say is that Burk and Yiamouyiannis and others have taken into account age, race and sex and have been criticised for so doing. Therefore, they have said, "Do not take those factors into account. Examine the bald statistics, which show a substantial increase in the cancer death rate in Birmingham." My right hon. and learned Friend and the people who wrote his report may not like it. I do not know whether Burk and Yiamouyiannis or the people who wrote my right hon. and learned Friend's report are right. But if distinguished and eminent men who have made a lifetime study of this subject are divided about the results, there must be a doubt about it. That doubt should be resolved in favour of the British people. It should not be resolved in favour of dentists, doctors or scientists, who believe that the mass medication of the water supply will lead to Utopia.

Mr. Best: rose—

Mr. Lawrence: I would like to get on, because I can see the gathering of the crowd. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister, who has not had the courage to listen to much of what I have said so far, that the Government have given us this prime time to debate the matter more fully and at a time when the press can report the proceedings, so that more people outside the House can be made aware that this is not just a matter of whether there should be freedom. It is also a health and safety matter. I am grateful to those who arranged the business for allowing us this opportunity, but it is slightly soured by the fact that, although it is supposed to be a free vote on the Conservative side, I notice that we have had a two-line Whip since 3.30 pm. That means that everyone must be here and that everyone who wishes to toe the Government line will soon go into the Lobby when no doubt a closure motion will be moved.

Mr. Best: My hon. and learned Friend talked about doubt. Does he accept that there was no doubt in the minds of hon. Members who signed early-day motion 65 on 25 February 1982, which referred to the West Midlands regional health authority, to which there was an amendment signed by 23 hon. Members? It stated:
The decision of the unelected West Midlands Regional Health Authority to mass-medicate 2,000,000 people under its control by adding an industrial effluent containing the toxic chemical fluoride to the public drinking water
should be deplored when,
(a) to do so is expressly against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of elected local authorities in the region which have voted on the issue; (b) the legality of such decisions is being tested before a Scottish Court; (c) it involves a flagrant violation of the individual's freedom to choose whether he wishes this medical treatment or not"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman has spoken at great length. I hope that he is not seeking to make another speech. Interventions should be brief.

Mr. Best: The early-day motion refers to other issues expressed by those hon. Members who signed that motion, among whom are two Ministers, whom I shall not name, and two Parliamentary Private Secretaries. Perhaps their views have substantially changed. I welcome a change of view, but that fact remains.

Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not wish to be unkind to my Government. I do not want to rub salt in the wounds of any of my hon. Friends who have, as a matter of principle, been against fluoridation, but not just their knowledge but their principles have changed. I realise that substantial pressures are placed upon those who seek to hold two principles. I regret that, but it is a fact of life.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It appears that the Minister for Health was being extremely selective in the report that he held to be of importance. He seemed to dismiss Dean Burk with a joke and an aside, yet he is prepared to quote from the recent Knox report which many people have not yet had the opportunity to study in depth. Is it not extraordinary that the DHSS, which is supposedly in favour of the nation's good health, is prepared lightly to dismiss the eminent reports to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred?

Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but it is worse than that. It is not just a question of Burk and Yiamouyiannis and other eminent people, but a large number of eminent scientists believe that this stuff is unsafe, is evil and should not be put into our water. I shall give the House a list of names. Professor Butenandt, a chemist from Munich university—a Nobel prize winner; Professor Murphy, a consultant physiologist — also a Nobel prize winner; Professor Semenov, a chemist at Leningrad university — another Nobel prize winner; Professor Louis Steyn, a professor of pharmacology and toxicology at Victoria university; Professor Albert Shatz, a co-discoverer of streptomycin; Professor Burgstable of the University of Kansas; Dr. James Ebert, vice-president of the United States National Academy of Sciences; Dr. Philip Sutton, former senior lecturer in dental science at Melbourne university.
In the United Kingdom I list Dr. Paul McCormick, research fellow at Nuffield college, Oxford; Dr. R. A. Helman, senior lecturer in bacteriology at Barnet hospital; G. J. Roberts, a lecturer in children's dentistry at the Royal dental hospital, London; Dr. C. W. M. Wilson, consultant physician in geriatric medicine at the Royal hospital, Lanarkshire and the department of physiology at Strathclyde; Dr. John Enslie, a lecturer in chemistry at King's college, London; Dr. Paul Wix, of the south bank polytechnic.
They are just some of the distinguished and eminent scientists who have said that this stuff should not go into our water. That is how selective my right hon. and learned Friend is. One can pour scorn on the odd individual, but a catalogue of Nobel prize winners and men of distinction in all the spheres covered by fluoridation say, "Don't touch it. The stuff is bad. It will poison society." To pretend that their views are not important is preposterous and I find it


difficult to understand how any Government, let alone my Government who purport to believe in freedom for the individual, can pretend that.

Mr. Fairbairn: Does my hon. and learned Friend appreciate that according to the Minister the people that he has just named are idiots. He told us that they were. We are about to vote on the closure on a matter of importance so that those who have jobs can get rid of their consciences. I am whipped by a vice-chairman of the Scottish Pure Water Association. How is that for freedom of conscience?

Mr. Lawrence: Once again, I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend.
I was talking about the cavalier brushing aside of experienced and expert people on the anti-fluoridation side of the argument. The Minister could not understand how we can still be opposed to fluoridation. A court in Scotland under the eminent and careful custody of Lord Jauncey concluded, after a long consideration, that fluoridation was utterly safe and that there was no evidence that it was unsafe. He concluded that it was absolutely beneficial to teeth — I have not begun that argument yet. Lord Jauncey, with all his eminence and wise judgment, made the judgment of only one man. One man, however eminent, can be wrong.
Against Lord Jauncey I set the conclusions of three courts of law in the United States recently. They all heard the same evidence from the same witnesses, but they came to different conclusions.
In Philadelphia fluoridation and its safety was considered at great length with a massive amount of evidence from the same people who appeared before Lord Jauncey's court. Judge Flaherty said:
This court is compellingly convinced of the evidence in favour of the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs were the people who wanted to stop the fluoridation of water in Philadelphia. They went to the court with their scientists and their doctors. The pro-fluoridationists took along their doctors and scientists and the judge said that he was
compellingly convinced of the evidence in favour of the plaintiffs.
That is one-all between Lord Jauncey and Judge Flaherty.
In February 1982 the case was heard again at Houston in Texas. The judge said:
Artificial fluoridation of public water supplies may cause or may contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling in man … and may aggravate malnutrition and existing illnesses in man.
A third judge in the Illinois case in February 1982 concluded:
The artificial addition of fluoride to the public water supply may have adverse health effects … It exposes the public to a risk, uncertain in its scope, of unhealthy side effects.
Three American judges came to those conclusions. They heard the same witnesses as Lord Jauncey, but they came to different conclusions.
If men of good will and, integrity with the ability to analyse the statistical, scientific and medical data come to different opinions about the safety of fluoride, surely there must be a doubt about its safety. That doubt should not be resolved against the public who do not want the stuff force-fed through their mouths via the drinking water from their taps.

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for giving way. I know that he wants to come to a rapid conclusion. My hon. and learned Friend is pursuing this matter in the wrong way. We know that there are two sides to this argument, and, in that case, the argument should go against fluoridation. That is not the Government's problem. As my hon. and learned Friend knows, at this stage of a party's period in office initiatives are not what they were, institutions are taking over, the Government are in the hands of a machine and the Civil Service has discovered that it has a problem. There has been this wretched court case in Scotland and this edentate woman. The Government have decided that something has to be done about the problem. They have the Knox report—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief.

Mr. Marlow: I am coming to the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Government have said to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister, "Off you go. Here is the report. Get the Bill through. This is the Government's duty." This is the hook that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has to get our right hon. and learned Friend the Minister off. That is the way to solve the problem

Mr. Lawrence: There is only one way in which to solve the problem, and that is for the Government to withdraw the Bill. That action would have the overwhelming support not only of the people but of, I think—

Mr. John Cope: rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put.

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Marlow: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think we have had a speech from an Opposition Back Bencher. I do not think that an alliance member has spoken. Is this not a rather early time for the Government to call for closure?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Whether a closure motion should be accepted is entirely a matter for the Chair. It is not debatable or open to challenge.

Mr. Fairbairn: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any precedent in the history of Parliament for a closure motion to be moved in a debate on any Bill which has a free vote?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. and learned Member is not expecting me to rake my memory to answer that point. It is not a point of order.

Mr. Lawrence: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible to find some way to give the Government the opportunity to reconsider whether they want to give the rest of the country the impression that they are trying to stifle debate on this important matter?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

The House having divided: Ayes 162, Noes 68.

Division No. 126]
[8.31 pm


AYES


Ancram, Michael
Marland, Paul


Arnold, Tom
Mather, Carol


Ashton, Joe
Maude, Hon Francis


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Mellor, David


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Moore, John


Bottomley, Peter
Moynihan, Hon C.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Neale, Gerrard


Bright, Graham
Needham, Richard


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Nelson, Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Neubert, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Newton, Tony


Butcher, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Normanton, Tom


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Onslow, Cranley


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Ottaway, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Colvin, Michael
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Coombs, Simon
Pattie, Geoffrey


Cope, John
Pavitt, Laurie


Corrie, John
Pawsey, James


Couchman, James
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Penhaligon, David


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Pollock, Alexander


Dicks, Terry
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Dorrell, Stephen
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Dunn, Robert
Richardson, Ms Jo


Durant, Tony
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Eggar, Tim
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Favell, Anthony
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Forman, Nigel
Rowe, Andrew


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Ryder, Richard


Freeman, Roger
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


George, Bruce
Sayeed, Jonathan


Glyn, Dr Alan
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Gow, Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Gregory, Conal
Shersby, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Silvester, Fred


Gummer, John Selwyn
Sims, Roger


Harvey, Robert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Henderson, Barry
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hind, Kenneth
Spencer, Derek


Howard, Michael
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Stanley, John


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Jessel, Toby
Stradling Thomas, J.


John, Brynmor
Terlezki, Stefan


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Kirkwood, Archy
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Thurnham, Peter


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Trippier, David


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Trotter, Neville


Lilley, Peter
Viggers, Peter


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Waddington, David


Lord, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Luce, Richard
Waldegrave, Hon William


Lyell, Nicholas
Walden, George


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Macfarlane, Neil
Wallace, James


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Waller, Gary


McQuarrie, Albert
Ward, John


Major, John
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)





Watson, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Watts, John



Wiggin, Jerry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Ian Lang and


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Archie Hamilton.


NOES


Alton, David
Irving, Charles


Ashdown, Paddy
Knowles, Michael


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lamond, James


Best, Keith
Lawrence, Ivan


Bidwell, Sydney
Leadbitter, Ted


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Caborn, Richard
McCartney, Hugh


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Carttiss, Michael
Marlow, Antony


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Monro, Sir Hector


Dalyell, Tam
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Dixon, Donald
Paisley, Rev Ian


Duffy, A. E. P.
Patchett, Terry


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Fookes, Miss Janet
Pike, Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Forth, Eric
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Foster, Derek
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Galley, Roy
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Greenway, Harry
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Grist, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


Ground, Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Wainwright, R.


Hawksley, Warren
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Haynes, Frank
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Hickmet, Richard
Wigley, Dafydd


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)



Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Nicholas Winterton and


Hunter, Andrew
Mr. Michael Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

s Mr. Michael Cocks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to put the Question immediately after the closure, without any interruption.

Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Cocks: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would be the last to interfere with the Government in obtaining their business, but I should like your guidance as to when it would be appropriate to ask the Lord Privy Seal, who is by fortunate chance with us, whether he would like to make a statement about the premature closure motion on a group of three substantial new clauses when only a handful of Members have had the opportunity to give their views to the House. Is it in any way related to the recent articles that have appeared in The Times on his anxiety about the late sittings of the House? At what stage, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do you think it would be appropriate to ask the Lord Privy Seal to give the House the benefit of his views on whether the almost precipitate closure of discussion on this important clause is related to his windiness about Government business proceeding after midnight?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that no one is more sensitive than perhaps the


occupant of the Chair to the times of the rising of the House, but the arrangement of business is not a matter for the Chair. The right hon. Gentleman's question about whether the closure motion was premature is a matter entirely for the Chair. I have exercised my judgment and it is not open to challenge or debate.

Mr. Cocks: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What is the most appropriate time to ask the Lord Privy Seal to make a statement?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Doubtless the Lord Privy Seal, who the right hon. Member said was in the House, has heard what has been said.

The House having divided:Ayes 76, Noes 148.

Division No. 127]
[8.43 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Ashdown, Paddy
Knowles, Michael


Best, Keith
Lamond, James


Boyes, Roland
Lawler, Geoffrey


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Lawrence, Ivan


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Bruce, Malcolm
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Lightbown, David


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McGuire, Michael


Clay, Robert
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Marlow, Antony


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Craigen, J. M.
Monro, Sir Hector


Dalyell, Tam
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Dixon, Donald
Ottaway, Richard


Duffy, A. E. P.
Paisley, Rev Ian


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Penhaligon, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Forth, Eric
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Galley, Roy
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Greenway, Harry
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Grist, Ian
Rowe, Andrew


Ground, Patrick
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Stan brook, Ivor


Harvey, Robert
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Haynes, Frank
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hickmet, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Howard, Michael
Terlezki, Stefan


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Howells, Geraint
Wigley, Dafydd


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hunter, Andrew



Irving, Charles
Tellers for the Ayes:


John, Brynmor
Mr. Michael Brown and


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Mr. Nicholas Winterton.


NOES


Ancram, Michael
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Tom
Butcher, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Caborn, Richard


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Chapman, Sydney


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Colvin, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Coombs, Simon


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Cope, John


Bright, Graham
Couchman, James


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)





Dicks, Terry
Newton, Tony


Dorrell, Stephen
Nicholls, Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Normanton, Tom


Dunn, Robert
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Eastham, Ken
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Eggar, Tim
Pattie, Geoffrey


Fatchett, Derek
Pavitt, Laurie


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Pawsey, James


Foster, Derek
Pollock, Alexander


Foulkes, George
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Freeman, Roger
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


George, Bruce
Richardson, Ms Jo


Gow, Ian
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Gregory, Conal
Rifkind, Malcolm


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Henderson, Barry
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Richard


Hind, Kenneth
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Home Robertson, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Howard, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Shersby, Michael


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Sims, Roger


Jessel, Toby
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Snape, Peter


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Spencer, Derek


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Lang, Ian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Stanley, John


Leadbitter, Ted
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lilley, Peter
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Luce, Richard
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Lyell, Nicholas
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Macfarlane, Neil
Thurnham, Peter


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Trippier, David


Major, John
Viggers, Peter


Marland, Paul
Waddington, David


Mather, Carol
Wainwright, R.


Maude, Hon Francis
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Maxton, John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Walden, George


Meadowcroft, Michael
Wallace, James


Mellor, David
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Watson, John


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Watts, John


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wiggin, Jerry


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Wolfson, Mark


Moore, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Younger, Rt Hon George


Neale, Gerrard



Needham, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Nelson, Anthony
Mr. Tristan Gare1-Jones and


Neubert, Michael
Mr. Tony Durant.

New Clause 11

MONITORING

'The Secretary of State shall establish machinery for monitoring the effects of the operation of this Act with particular reference to—

(a)benefit for teeth;
(b)harm to health;
(c)harm to plant and aquatic life.

and to report the result of such monitoring to each House of Parliament every 12 months.'.—{Mr. Lawrence.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put,That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided:Ayes 81, Noes 145.

Division No. 128]
[8.54 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Irving, Charles


Ashdown, Paddy
John, Brynmor


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Best, Keith
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Knowles, Michael


Boyes, Roland
Lawler, Geoffrey


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Lightbown, David


Bruce, Malcolm
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Budgen, Nick
McGuire, Michael


Caborn, Richard
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Meacher, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Monro, Sir Hector


Clay, Robert
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Ottaway, Richard


Craigen, J. M.
Paisley, Rev Ian


Dalyell, Tam
Pike, Peter


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Dixon, Donald
Richardson, Ms Jo


Dobson, Frank
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Fatchett, Derek
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Skinner, Dennis


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Forth, Eric
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Galley, Roy
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


George, Bruce
Temple-Morris, Peter


Greenway, Harry
Terlezki, Stefan


Grist, Ian
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ground, Patrick
Wigley, Dafydd


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Haynes, Frank
Winterton, Nicholas


Hickmet, Richard
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Holt, Richard



Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Mr. Ivan Lawrence and


Howells, Geraint
Mr. Tony Marlow.


Hubbard-Miles, Peter



NOES


Ancram, Michael
Foulkes, George


Arnold, Tom
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Gourlay, Harry


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gow, Ian


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gregory, Conal


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bottomley, Peter
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Harvey, Robert


Bright, Graham
Henderson, Barry


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hind, Kenneth


Burt, Alistair
Home Robertson, John


Butcher, John
Howard, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Chapman, Sydney
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jessel, Toby


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Colvin, Michael
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Coombs, Simon
King, Rt Hon Tom


Cope, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Couchman, James
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lambie, David


Dicks, Terry
Lang, Ian


Dorrell, Stephen
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lee, John (Pendle)


Dunn, Robert
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Eastham, Ken
Lilley, Peter


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Eggar, Tim
Luce, Richard


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lyell, Nicholas





McCurley, Mrs Anna
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Macfarlane, Neil
Ryder, Richard


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Marland, Paul
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Mather, Carol
Sayeed, Jonathan


Maude, Hon Francis
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Maxton, John
Shersby, Michael


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Sims, Roger


Meadowcroft, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mellor, David
Snape, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Spencer, Derek


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stanley, John


Moore, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Moyninan, Hon C.
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Neale, Gerrard
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Needham, Richard
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Nelson, Anthony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Neubert, Michael
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Newton, Tony
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Normanton, Tom
Trippier, David


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Viggers, Peter


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Waddington, David


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Wainwright, R.


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Waldegrave, Hon William


Pavitt, Laurie
Walden, George


Pawsey, James
Wallace, James


Penhaligon, David
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Pollock, Alexander
Watson, John


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Watts, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wiggin, Jerry


Rathbone, Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Younger, Rt Hon George


Rifkind, Malcolm



Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Tellers for the Noes:


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Mr. Tony Durant and


Roe, Mrs Marion
Mr. Donald Thompson.


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may recollect that last Wednesday the Leader of the House stifled a debate that we were due to have by making a change in the timetable, which not only created a most unfortunate precedent but ensured that it was utterly impossible for the London Regional Transport (Amendment) Bill to have a Report stage. Earlier the Government had been embarrassed by the fact that they were utterly unable to muster enough of their payroll vote even to terminate a debate on the Adjournment.
This evening we have had what I regard as an incredible situation where, after only four speeches, including that of the Minister, who spoke for 33 minutes, the closure was moved on an issue that had already proved so contentious and embarrassing to the Government that they had been forced to take it off in the hours after midnight last week and bring it back today. I accept that a Conservative Member spoke for nearly two hours, but that is not the responsibility of Labour Members, who have a right to participate in the debate as well. The Minister's speech lasted the average length of those of all other hon. Members, so if they are accused of filibustering, the Minister must stand equally indicted.
May I have your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the fact that there has been yet another attempt to muzzle the House on a debate which itself involves an important issue of freedom and which itself hands to non-elected


organisations decision-making powers that many hon. Members feel deeply should be preserved for elected representatives, be they local or national?
How can we deal with a position where twice now, within six days, the Leader of the House has abandoned his duty to protect the House and to protect Back Benchers? Who on earth now is able to protect Back Benchers?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but the only point that he has raised for my consideration is whether the House should have voted on a closure motion. I repeat that the question whether the House should have a closure motion put to it is entirely a matter for the Chair and is not open to debate or challenge. I made my judgment, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not challenging it.

Mr. Williams: I am not challenging your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in accepting the closure, which I can well understand. Since the debate lasted more than two hours, on the basis of precedent you were justified in accepting the closure motion. I am questioning and challenging the judgment of the Leader of the House. On an issue of profound importance and deep concern to the House he so misread the feeling of the House that he moved the closure motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair accepts no responsibility whatever for the judgment of any Minister, including the Leader of the House. Let me correct one point that the hon. Gentleman made. It is not a convention of the House that two hours should elapse before a closure motion is acceptable. It is entirely a matter for judgment in the particular circumstances. While there are sides to the House, there are also sides to the question, and the Chair must consider whether the sides to the question have been adequately reflected in the debate.

Mr. Michael Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Without in any way wanting or seeking to challenge your decision to accept the closure motion, which I acknowledge is not debatable and is a matter for the Chair, during the previous debate my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister sought to intervene after only one speech with the result that we were asked to vote when the question—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, despite what the hon. Gentleman said in his opening remarks, he is challenging the judgment of the Chair. It is for the Chair to decide which right hon. and hon. Member should catch his eye. It is not unusual for Ministers, to help the House to make progress or to advise the House, to speak early on in a debate on Report or in Committee.

Mr. Brown: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It was not a point of order.

Mr. Brown: I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister will indicate at the beginning of the next debate when he intends to speak so that we may at least have the benefit of the Minister's—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I repeat that the hon. Gentleman should know by now that it is a matter for the

judgment of the Chair which hon. Member — whether Minister or not—should catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you advise those in the Chamber who may still be interested in the concept of free speech on a free vote how that is to be secured when, in the middle of a speech, the closure motion was moved by a whipped Government—and, indeed, a whipped party? I imagine that it is important that the motion on the British Shipbuilders Borrowing Powers (Increase of Limit) Order, which can be debated for one and a half hours, is soon reached. That was the psuedo basis upon which the Government Benches were whipped at 3.30 pm this afternoon. I am sure that it is a very important matter.
Now that the Whips have ensured that their dragoons can go and have a decent dinner and come back to stop free speech again, when they choose to do so, on an issue of principle, perhaps you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can tell us who can protect free speech on a free vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman is indulging in criticism of the Chair. I must again point out that it is a matter for the Chair, and the Chair alone, to decide whether a closure motion should be accepted and divided upon at an appropriate moment during a debate. The debate had gone on for three and a half hours.

Mr. Don Dixon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Referring to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), is it true that there appears to be an order from the Tory hierarchy to curtail the debate and put hon. Members and the occupant of the Chair in an invidious position—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair has no responsibility for Tory, or any other, hierarchy. These bogus points of order are only delaying progress.

Mr. Meadowcroft: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should value your advice on the order of future debates. Many hon. Members who wish to participate in a later debate are concerned whether the Government can carry through their business this evening. On Tuesday, we had the farce of a closure motion being carried only by Opposition votes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not know which Tuesday the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but if he is anxious to make progress I suggest that he stops impeding it by raising what is quite clearly not a point of order.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your concern for the interests of this House and of Back Benchers is highly respected. Will you intimate whether it is the usual practice of the House—I do not in any way seek to question your decision on the previous debate — for right hon. and hon. Members to be entitled to an answer at the end of a debate when many questions have been raised to which answers have not been given?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not ask me to make judgments about the contents of speeches. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to make a serious point of order; I am trying to be helpful. Of course I am not saying that my hon. Friends and Opposition Members have not been helpful and have not made proper points of order. You will know that it is free business tonight—it is not whipped and there is a free vote. On the basis of the free vote, if we take away the payroll vote from the last three Divisions, the Government lost them. Therefore, on a free vote in the House of Commons, the business has been lost.
You will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the last time that we debated this issue my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister said that he would bring before this House measures to do with consultation. We do not have those measures before us. As the Leader of the House is present, he may wish at this stage — because the Government, apart from the payroll vote, have lost the support of the House and because my right hon. and learned Friend, busy man as he is, has not had time to frame the vital amendment which he has promised—to raise a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. One at a time, please. I was about to say that I hope not to get many more such helpful points of order.

Mr. Cocks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have noticed that when I raised my original point of order I did it in the firm's time, so to speak, and was not in any way impeding the progress of the Bill. At that time, while saying that my material was not within your purview, you pointed out that the Lord Privy Seal was present and had heard my remarks.
As some time has elapsed and there have been two Divisions, during which time the Lord Privy Seal has had time to reflect, I invite the right hon. Gentleman to show his hand to the House. We are used to his performances on a Thursday, when he puts us in mind of K. S. Ranjitsinhji with his deft leg glances and defalcations behind the wicket. I suggest that it is now time for him to put his foot down the wicket, hit the ball over the sight-screen and tell us exactly what his intentions are.
I have already referred to items which have appeared in The Times about the right hon. Gentleman's concern over late sittings of the House. Last week he was remarkably forthcoming; unlike any former Leader of the House, he gave an intimate preview of the recess dates weeks in advance. As a former Government business manager, I deprecate his precedent because one does not lightly give away some of the best shots in the locker.
Having done that, will the right hon. Gentleman now be equally forthcoming about whether he had been in contact with the Government Whips' Office and put forward the idea that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might be tempted into accepting the closure when only four hon. Members had spoken and the case had hardly begun to be rehearsed? I invite the Lord Privy Seal to come clean with the House and say exactly how we lesser mortals fit into his master plan of proceedings.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I feel encouraged by such elegant oratory from the right hon. Member for Bristol,

South (Mr. Cocks) to make a few remarks. I hope, however, that he will allow me to substitute for K. S. Ranjitsinhji a superb Gloucestershire cricketer; I should like to be thought of in terms of Jessop.
I note that the right hon. Gentleman regards the announcement of a very tentative Easter recess date as coming within the terminology of best shots. That is a most generous judgment of best shots and I thank him for his kindness at this hour.
On the substantive point, the right hon. Gentleman knows that, in these matters of closures and so on, I have no comment, except to say that the House is well advised to observe the judgment of the Chair.

Mr. Lawerence: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The contribution of the Leader of the House in handling these matters puts one more in mind of the great Yorkshire cricketer Mr. Boycott, and I hope that he has a long innings.
Since you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have to make the judgment in the matter of points of order, may I put the plea that I had just begun to enter my argument when I was cut off in my prime by the Patronage Secretary? If there are any more points or order, there is a serious possibility that I will not be able to deliver to the House the full benefit of my speech. I hope that this is the last point of order that is made—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope it is the last point of order because once again it is one that implicitly challenges my judgment. I listened at considerable length to what the hon. and learned Gentleman was saying. I must tell him that that helped in my final judgment about whether I should accept the closure. The House would be well advised to accept the concluding remarks of the Leader of the House.

New Clause 13

HEALTH AUTHORITIES

`Any proceedings of a health authority in relation to an application or proposed application under section 1 of this Act shall be subject to the provisions of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, save that section 1(2) of that Act (power to exclude the public by resolution) shall not apply to such proceedings.'.—[Mr. Dobson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Dobson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House is clearly in two minds. I do not think hon. Members are clear about whether this is a one-day game or a timeless test. Nevertheless, I hope that the new clause will command the support of all hon. Members, whether they are in favour of, or opposed to, putting fluoride in the water. Whatever one's point of view, there is clearly no case for furtively or secretively deciding to put fluoride in the water. The new clause would require any health authority to discuss and decide on, in a public part of its meeting, the addition of fluoride to the water in its area.
When the matter was discussed in Committee we moved an amendment which would have required any decision or discussion on fluoridation by a water authority to be in a public part of its meeting. That was voted down, partly because there is no such thing as the public part of a meeting of a water authority because this Goverament changed water authorities from public bodies which met


in public to private and furtive bodies which no longer meet in public. It was galling to hear various Conservative Members, who had happily gone into the Government Lobby in support of that change, advocating open decisions which were openly arrived at. How could that happen when water authorities, which habitually met in public, have been changed to bodies which perpetually meet in private? However, that does not invalidate our proposed new clause.
When we put forward a similar amendment in Committee the Minister responded that there was no need to make it a legal requirement because the Secretary of State would issue a circular and everything would be all right. I was reminded at the time of the words "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away". The fact is that those who issue circulars can withdraw them and issue others in their place. Therefore, we felt that it was unsatisfactory to rely on an undertaking that circulars would be issued. We put down the new clause for the Report stage in the hope that the Government would accept it.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but is it not the case that a circular is purely advisory and has no mandatory effect, and that it would be within the law for a water authority which did not wish to conduct such discussions in public to read the circular, consider it and reject the advice given in it?

Mr. Dobson: That is right. That is another reason for rejecting the Minister's assurance that he was prepared to meet our point by the issuing of a circular. The hon. Gentleman has taken up one of the reasons why we are not satisfied that the issuing of a circular would meet our point.
I commend to the Tory Members who are still present the proposition that such matters should be discussed openly at the open parts of meetings by drawing to their attention— this may send a shiver through some of them—the advocacy of the Prime Minister, who in 1960 was then the humble hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). In her maiden speech she introduced a private Member's Bill, which was known as the Public Bodies (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Bill. She advocated that all major decisions by public bodies should be taken in the presence of the press and the public. I think that she was right to do so. She said:
I hope that hon. Members will … consider that the paramount function of this distinguished House is to safeguard civil liberties rather than to think that administrative convenience should take first place in law."—[Official Report, 5 February 1960; Vol. 616, c. 1357–58.]
It would be administratively convenient to some to debate and decide upon fluoridation in private. As someone who is strongly in favour of putting fluoride in water, it seems that that would not be a good idea. If the legitimate doubts of some members of the public are to be dealt with properly, it is necessary for debates and discussions to take place in public so that everyone knows what is going on and no one has the impression that some hole-in-the-corner decisions are being arrived at.
The once humble hon. Member for Finchley, who is now the right hon. Member for Finchley and the Prime Minister, will, I hope, insist when she is marshalling the payroll vote this evening that the principles she upheld in

1960 be applied. The right hon. Lady claims to be a conviction politician and we must ensure that anyone who makes that claim is not allowed to decide that he or she is covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. I remind those who are not wholly familiar with that measure that it allows convictions of more than 10 years' standing to be wiped from the public record. I do not believe that people's political convictions should be allowed to be wiped from the public record.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept the new clause. If it is imperfectly drafted — I am always ready to accept that something that I have drafted may be imperfect — I hope that the Minister will be willing to say that he accepts the principle that these issues must be discussed and decided in the public parts of meetings and will be prepared to introduce appropriate amendments on these lines in another place.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I hope that I can reassure my right hon. and hon. Friends, especially those who felt that I leaped into the previous debate rather precipitately after two hours had elapsed, that on this occasion I intervene early with the intention of being helpful. There is no difference of opinion between the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), most of my hon. Friends on both sides of the argument and the Government. We share the hon. Gentleman's belief that decisions of this sort should be taken by health authorities sitting in public, subject to one reservation which I hope everyone will accept: we believe that authorities must have the right to close meetings if public disorder is threatened.
I tried to give an undertaking in Committee that we would ensure that this procedure would be followed. I offered administrative guidance, which we intended to be by circular. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has rightly observed that circulars are not legally binding. We could use the powers of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to issue legally binding directives if health authorities resisted circulars. Given that the new clause has been tabled again, I appreciate that that is not thought to be wholly satisfactory and, indeed, that it could be reversed by some perverse successor to the present Government. Therefore, we are prepared to accept the argument that this should be made a statutory obligation upon the health authority.
9.30 pm
Unfortunately, the drafting is not wholly acceptable. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has closely followed points that arose in the Committee debate. I am advised that section 1(2) of the Act is usually used by health authorities when they close their meetings because of the unfortunate public disorder which breaks out from time to time. It is arguable that they have common law powers to close meetings in any event and that section 1(8) of the Act gives them the necessary powers. Nevertheless, doubt would be raised if this particular provision were enacted in its present form.
I therefore give an undertaking that in another place the Government will table their own amendment, drafted by parliamentary counsel, which will achieve the purpose that I have described, so that health authorities have a statutory duty to meet in public to decide whether to ask that fluoride should be added to the water. But this will be subject to the necessary reserve powers to go into private session if disorder to the proceedings is threatened.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the Government's amendment cover public voting as well as public discussion? It is important that the public should know what advice has been given to the members of the authority by those who have a duty to advise them. The public is also entitled to know about an authority's debate and conclusions, just as we in this place vote in public.

Mr. Clarke: I shall consider that point. My belief is that health authority votes are taken in public. I am certainly familiar with hearing the figures for either side when an authority vote has been taken on a contentious matter. I also believe that authorities can have a recorded vote when someone insists upon it. I shall consider my hon. Friend's point, and I agree that there is no reason why votes on the issue, as well as proceedings, should not be made available to the public.

Sir Hector Monro: I was surprised that my right hon. and learned Friend did not refer to Scotland, where the procedures are substantially different from those in England. The new clause would not cover Scotland, where, rather than dealing with health authorities, we are dealing with regional authorities which have their own procedures.
I was also disappointed at the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend did not fulfil what I thought to be an obligation to table amendments on consultation before we reconsidered the Bill. In the amendment which I expected him to table, we could have dealt with the issue at the heart of the Bill — consultation between the district and regional councils in Scotland.
My right hon. and learned Friend did not even refer to the regional authorities which in Scotland act as water authorities. He will probably realise from my amendments to the Bill that I want the district councils to have the right to consult the regional councils, hopefully in public. That would ensure that everyone in a region—and everyone in a region also lives within a district in Scotland—has a right to know exactly what the councillors are doing and the arguments that they are advancing on whether or not fluoridation should take place.
That is crucial, because the public in Scotland want to know. They are also anxious to know whether the regional water authorities are prepared to provide differential water supplies to those districts which do not wish to introduce fluoridation.
Will what is proposed in the context of English authorities be equally detailed in respect of Scottish local government and the administration of local government through the regions and districts? Only if my right hon. and learned Friend gives me that undertaking will I be satisfied.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I do not find myself completely happy with new clause 13, proposed by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). On an initial reading of the clause I saw nothing wrong with it in principle but, on further consideration and particularly after listening to the hon. Gentleman, I feel that the clause serves only to confuse the more fundamental issues that should be considered here. After listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech in support of his new clause I feel that it is because of his own prejudicies in the matter that our attention is being diverted from the important points.

Mr. Marlow: I am very interested to see the way in which my hon. Friend is developing his speech. We have heard from my right hon. and learned Friend that he intends to accept the amendment. I wonder if my hon. Friend will agree with me that such is the state of the new clause now before us that, although it would be a good thing if my right hon. and learned Friend brought forward a proper amendment of this sort, the safest thing to do in all the circumstances would be to vote against this new clause.

Mr. Jones: I take the point made by my hon. Friend and we shall be watching with keen interest the form of the Government's official response to new clause 13, or even to new clause 1, which was all that we managed to debate this time last week. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) referred to a substantial area — he glossed over it, but I would think it a substantial area — of public doubt over the whole question of fluoridation. He felt that people would want to know about the decisions being taken.
How does this clause help to assuage public doubts on this matter? The hon. Gentleman wants to make sure that health authorities take these decisions in public, but this touches on the fundamental fault of the Bill — that a nominated body should be given the power to take a decision on such an important subject. In my definition — and I would have thought the definition of many, particularly the people who have doubts about this—the health authorities are established to administer the National Health Service, not in any way as policy decision taking bodies. That cannot be the function of a nominated body which owes no allegiance to a democratic electorate.
The National Health Service is only a part, although a substantial part, of the health care of the nation. The responsibility for public health clearly involves the responsibilities of others. My own feeling in this matter is that the local authorities should be brought into this field—even completely to replace the health authorities and their involvement in this. I feel that in no way can a health authority, as a nominated body, be regarded as responsible for the public or be thought of by the public as responsible when taking decisions in this matter of the fluoridation of water. I am unhappy with this new clause. I do not feel that it adds a real safeguard.

Mr. Dobson: Many Members of the Opposition, certainly including myself, are extremely doubtful about the current functions and the processes of appointment of members of district health authorities. Can we count on the hon. Gentleman's support if we think there ought to be rather more local influence brought to bear in such matters as hospital closures, whether renal units are open or whether, just south of the river, the cardiac unit at Guy's hospital is going to be closed down for four months? Does he not think that those are similar significant matters which perhaps ought not to be left to the nominated health authority?

Mr. Jones: I note what the hon. Gentleman says and I will, of course, listen closely to any argument that he puts forward. But my response to those arguments may be the same as those that he put forward this evening which convinced me that new clause 13 should not be pursued. I regard health authorities as administrative bodies and not as policy decision-making bodies.

Sir Dudley Smith: I shall be extremely brief. I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister proposes to accept the new clause. Modest as it is, it is a step in the right direction after some of the other proposals that have been put forward.
I intervene only to say to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that I was present on the day when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister moved her private Member's Bill admitting the press to public meetings. It was a brilliant speech that presaged great things to come. It helped members of the press to get into quite a number of public authority meetings from which they had previously been banned. Over the years the position has improved, and I should have thought that it was just about right today. There are always claims that other authorities should be open to the media, but the situation was regularised in 1960 and has improved since then.
Perhaps there is a good case for giving admission to the meetings of water authorities. I know that a private Member's Bill on the subject is in limbo and probably will not reach the statute book, but it is important that the media should be able to attend meetings where important issues such as fluoridation are discussed. The same applies to health authorities. There are many instances when it is right and proper that the press should not attend, but there are other occasions when the press should act as a safeguard for the people.
In those circumstances, I welcome the new clause, but I am afraid that it does not go quite far enough.

Mr. McGuire: I have an apology to make. I think that the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) was on his feet when I scribbled him a note saying, "Keep it going, I am going for my dinner." When I returned to the Chamber, I found that we had moved on a bit. We are now discussing a new clause that I support. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the fact that I was not in the Chamber to hear my hon. Friend, who wants to aid the Bill's passage—I shall not quibble with that yet, as that is probably a matter for Third Reading—make a no doubt brilliant and lucid speech about the new clause.
My hon. Friend referred to this issue in Committee. I have no doubt that he has now added to the brief speech that he made in Committee, pressing the Minister to allow more public ventilation of this subject. The more we allow the public to listen to what I hope will be compelling arguments as to why the water should not be fluoridated, and the more light we can throw on the matter, the less fluoridation there will be. I know that that is not the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, and that he firmly believes that, if people listen to the arguments, they will be persuaded. But, like me, he is a democrat. Incidentally, all hon. Members should be careful, when making party points, not to impugn the integrity of other hon. Members. But I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend does not want things that affect millions of people—we are told that 5 million people in this country receive fluoridated water — to be done secretly, because that would offend against a deeper principle of democracy that all hon. Members subscribe to. The House has not given a green light to that. Fluoridation may be carried out, but all the facts must be known. The drift of the argument is that it is a good thing

to fluoridate. I am offended that undemocratic bodies can make the decision. The least we can do is to allow the public to listen to the reasons why the authorities are so persuaded.
The Bill is a bad Bill and we should not have touched it with a barge pole. However, in one or two cases it is written into the Bill that there must be unanimity. The district health authorities and the area and regional health authorities must be persuaded that fluoridation is a good thing. The water authorities must also be persuaded of that.
Although I wanted to speak before the closure, the matter was no doubt fait accompli because time was pressing and the Government wanted to move on. Last Tuesday night and early on Wednesday morning the Government could not carry the payroll vote. I would have liked to speak on other amendments that touched on this principle. We should allow the public into the meetings so that secret deeds cannot be done which will affect many people. At present, 5 million people receive fluoridated water. I doubt whether those people were seriously aware of what was debated when the decision was taken to put artificial fluoride into the water to the presently permitted degree. If it had been known that the matter was to be publicly debated in a committee, the public would have attended in great numbers. If the public could not be persuaded then, they would have sought to influence the authorities later that it was not a good thing to do.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I wish to raise a point with the hon. Gentleman before he moves from the concept of unanimity, which he referred to as being enshrined in the Bill. He talked about the health authorities and the water authorities having to agree. He may be overstating the case. As I understand it, the water authority is more in the position of being required to add fluoride to the water supply, if it is so directed by the health authority. The grounds for deciding not to do so are related to the concept that, in the opinion of the statutory water authority, something is reasonably practical and that it does not increase the fluoride content of the water supply to areas outside that covered by the application. That does not fit in with the hon. Gentleman's concept of unanimity that includes the water authorities.

Mr. McGuire: The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that unanimity is not required, and that a district or regional health authority can decide to fluoridate. The authority will have arrived at that decision democratically, although the methods of gaining membership of those bodies are undemocratic. The majority of members are appointed and are not subject to public recall or the public invigilation of why they reach their decision. The hon. Gentleman seems to say that such an authority can persuade an unwilling water authority, providing it is technically feasible. I understand from our deliberations in Committee that the water authority and the district or regional health authority must both be persuaded. There must be unanimity. It is not a question of whether a water authority believes that there is a technical impediment to fluoridating the water to the required level. It could hardly put fluoride in if that requirement was not met. I understand that the matter goes a little deeper than that. In Committee, some hon. Members believed that one of


the best things to come out of a bad Bill was the fact that the area for which a water authority was responsible had to be conterminous with the district health authority area and that they could not overlap, although there is a provision in case of emergency.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: rose—

Mr. McGuire: I shall give way to one of the foremost lay experts in the House, who I hope will confirm that I am right.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I would not plead guilty to that description, but the hon. Gentleman is wholly right. This is not a matter of opinion but of what the Bill states. Clause 1 makes it clear that the health authority simply gives permission. It does not require the water authority to put fluoride in the water. Nor need we waste time about what "health authority" means, because clause 7 shows that in England and Wales it means any district health authority. There is no nonsense about regional health authorities having any locus standi in this matter.

Mr. McGuire: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is a formidable expert on such matters, for confirming what I said to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) and what I said before he intervened. The best way to throw light on such matters is to allow the public to attend water authority meetings. The English disease is secrecy.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) mentioned the Bill which the Prime Minister introduced in 1960, when she was just a slip of a girl. When he replied to that debate, the then Secretary of State for Education and. Science rather overdid the alliteration. He was especially fond of the letter "c", and he said that the right hon. Lady's speech was cogent, composed and courageous. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that the right hon. Lady's speech was an example which we should all follow. Let us eliminate secrecy as far as possible. Let us tear down the iron curtains of secrecy and let more public light be shed on decisions that affect the public. In many cases, decisions detrimental to them are made secretly at meetings which they cannot attend.

Sir Dudley Smith: The person who replied to that debate was the late Lord Brooke, then Mr. Henry Brooke, who at that time was the Minister for Housing and Local Government.

Mr. McGuire: We sometimes have to correct the footnotes of history. I was led astray by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras.

Mr. Dobson: Both recollections are correct. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) was talking about a Second Reading debate. The over-fulsome tributes were made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Sir K. Joseph), who was then the Under-Secretary, now the Secretary of State, for Education and Science, who was replying to the Third Reading debate.

Mr. McGuire: We are all right. It is something that we can agree with one another. Whoever made the speech to which I referred went overboard with alliteration when he said that the right hon. Lady was courageous, composed and cogent. We could add other "c"s and say that she has "considerably changed".

Mr. Marlow: The amendment suggests that at any meeting of a health authority on the subject there should be public participation and discussion. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister said that the Government would accept the spirit of the amendment and bring its own participation amendment before the House of Lords.
The Bill seeks to allow a water authority, when a health authority says that it is OK, to put the wretched stuff in the water. Does the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire) believe that the best place for that public participation and discussion is, as suggested, at the area health authority when all the specialists and health hygiene experts are together, or later when the water authority makes the decision?

Mr. McGuire: No undemocratic body has the right to mass-medicate people when they have no recourse. The Government enjoy a terrific majority, but I hope that as the night goes on those subjected to a payroll vote will leave us free men and women to talk about a matter of great importance. I believe that I am acting in the interests of my constituents. I see that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) wishes to intervene; I shall give way, since his interventions are usually spot on.

Mr. Fairbairn: We are discussing a matter of principle. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire) has fallen into the Government's trap by using the term "mass medication". We are talking not about mass medication but about forcing the whole population to swallow medicine under the fantasy that, however poisonous that medicine might be, it might cure toothache in children.

Mr. McGuire: I do not want to cross swords with the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). I defer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's greater knowledge and command of the English language and to his ability to deploy arguments. Since I am a poor old sponsored miner, I cannot hope to compete with him. The hon. and learned Gentleman has many inbuilt advantages. I use the term "mass medication" because the proposal affects the mass of people and because fluoride is not put in water to make it wholesome, but to treat an assumed medical condition. The phrase "force feeding" is more emotive than the term "mass medication". We share a common aim to bring to the attention of the public the fact that something has been done which will be accepted as mass medication or force feeding.

Mr. Fairbairn: If I may illustrate the matter, when I was studying medicine—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That, at this day's sitting, the Water (Fluoridation) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. — [Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 71.

Division No. 129]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Ancram, Michael
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Arnold, Tom
Bottomley, Peter


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Bright, Graham


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.






Burt, Alistair
Normanton, Tom


Butcher, John
Onslow, Cranley


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Chapman, Sydney
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Pavitt, Laurie


Coombs, Simon
Pawsey, James


Cope, John
Penhaligon, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Pollock, Alexander


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Dicks, Terry
Powley, John


Dorrell, Stephen
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Rathbone, Tim


Dunn, Robert
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Durant, Tony
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Eggar, Tim
Rowe, Andrew


Fatchett, Derek
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Ryder, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Fox, Marcus
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Freeman, Roger
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gow, Ian
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Shersby, Michael


Harris, David
Silvester, Fred


Harvey, Robert
Sims, Roger


Hayes, J.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Henderson, Barry
Spencer, Derek


Hind, Kenneth
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Howard, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Squire, Robin


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Stanley, John


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Steel, Rt Hon David


Jessel, Toby
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Key, Robert
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Thornton, Malcolm


Lang, Ian
Thurnham, Peter


Lee, John (Pendle)
Tracey, Richard


Lilley, Peter
Trippier, David


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Trotter, Neville


Luce, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Lyell, Nicholas
Waddington, David


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Macfarlane, Neil
Waldegrave, Hon William


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Wallace, James


Major, John
Waller, Gary


Marland, Paul
Ward, John


Mather, Carol
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Maude, Hon Francis
Watson, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Watts, John


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Wheeler, John


Mellor, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Wolfson, Mark


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wood, Timothy


Moore, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Younger, Rt Hon George


Neale, Gerrard



Neubert, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Newton, Tony
Mr. T. Garel-Jones and


Nicholls, Patrick
Mr. M. Lennox-Boyd.


NOES


Alton, David
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Carttiss, Michael


Beith, A. J.
Cash, William


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Best, Keith
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Dalyell, Tam


Boyes, Roland
Dixon, Donald


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Duffy, A. E. P.


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Eastham, Ken


Bruce, Malcolm
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Budgen, Nick
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)





Forth, Eric
Maynard, Miss Joan


Galley, Roy
Meadowcroft, Michael


George, Bruce
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, Harry
Monro, Sir Hector


Grist, Ian
Paisley, Rev Ian


Ground, Patrick
Pike, Peter


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Skinner, Dennis


Haynes, Frank
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Holt, Richard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Terlezki, Stefan


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Wigley, Dafydd


Knowles, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Lawler, Geoffrey
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Lawrence, Ivan
Winterton, Nicholas


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)



Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Tellers for the Noes:


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mr. M. Brown and


McGuire, Michael
Mr. A. Marlow.


McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Water (Fluoridation) Bill may be proceeded with, although opposed, until any hour.

As amended, again further considered.

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Fairbairn.

Mr. McGuire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had only given way to the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) when he was interrupted by the necessity to put the Ten o'clock motion.

Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) finished? Do not let me provoke him.

Mr. Fairbairn: I cannot remember where I had begun. I had put down an amendment that did not receive your favour, Mr. Speaker, suggesting that local authorities could put substances in the water to prevent schizophrenia. We have a Government who at one moment say that they want us all to have dinner, and as totalitarians try to cut short the debate, but when we all want to go to bed they prolong the debate.

Mr. McGuire: The proceedings were interrupted by our Standing Orders, and I am not certain at what point the hon. and learned Member wanted me to give way to him, but he has said something that I hope will give the Minister food for thought.
In support of this new clause, which I believe that the Government have accepted, I want to develop the point about how these meetings, to which the public will be allowed to go, will take shape and form. I cannot see the sense in simply having the public come into a meeting that they cannot influence. Decisions will be taken that they would object to in a normal democratic way, but they have no right of recall and cannot even chastise these people because they are appointed undemocratically.
Here we have a democratic House of Commons, giving tremendous powers to certain people that we should not be giving them to. However, given that they will have them,


it is not merely a matter of allowing the public to come in to observe the undemocratic procedures, even though they rail against what has been decided. It is essential that we should be able to influence these people before they take these decisions, and I do not know of what the Minister was approving.

Mr. Fairbairn: I have now recalled the matter that I was raising when I was rudely interrupted once more by the Government managers. The hon. Gentleman referred to mass medication. When I studied medicine I was one of the first guinea pigs of mass radiography. This form of screening was provided to help everybody who underwent mass radiography. The mass medication referred to by the hon. Gentleman is not intended to help everybody who has to swallow it. However, everybody will have to swallow it in the hope that it will help somebody else.

Mr. McGuire: This matter was thoroughly thrashed out on Second Reading and in Committee. It remains one of the principal objections of those who support my point of view. I recall the famous saying of John Stuart Mill that over his mind and body every citizen is sovereign. The Bill takes away one of his sovereign rights. He has to receive a substance which, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, is assumed to benefit a small number of people but which cannot possibly help the vast majority of those who will have to take it, whether they like it or not.

Mr. Laurie Pavlitt: My hon. Friend and I have crossed swords from time to time on this question. Nobody is consulted about the inclusion of the 33 chemicals that are introduced into Thames water, including a highly toxic substance, sulphuric acid. They are a prophylaxis. We are referring on the one hand to mass medication, which is an emotional term, and on the other hand to the provision of a prophylaxis, which is an unemotional term. The difference between my hon. Friend and I is that he is referring to medication while I am dealing with the prevention of illness.

Mr. McGuire: My hon. Friend said that 33 artificial substances are added to the water and that I am making a big cry about adding a 34th. However, I understand that all of those artificial substances are added to make the water wholesome and to take out the bugs which would otherwise make people ill. That is completely different from adding a substance which does not increase the wholesomeness of the water and which we believe could possibly have bad side effects.

Sir Dudley Smith: The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, but I believe he is wrong to refer to mass medication. He is not right about that, nor, with respect, is my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) who referred to force feeding. Surely this is preventive medicine, the idea being that children under the age of five should not develop dental caries. What possible excuse there can be for saying that the remainder of the population of this country should have to drink fluoridated water I do not know. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could enlighten me.

Mr. McGuire: I do not disagree fundamentally with the hon. Gentleman. Those who say that a Bill of this kind is needed believe that fluoride should be added to the water at a specified level because it will have lasting benefits, and that it is even better if a child benefits from fluoridated

water while it is being carried in its mother's womb. Then the benefits are lifelong. The promoters of the Bill believe that fluoridation delays the onset of dental caries, although it does not eliminate it. Nobody has tried to pretend that the answer to dental hygiene is to provide fluoridated water for people, even to a child when it is being carried in its mother's womb, and then to say that they will not need to do anything else. It is being said that the very young will get some benefit for a time and it may well be that that benefit will last a long time. But I return to the main proposition. If they are not educated when they are in the care of their parents properly to look after their teeth by means of their diet, we can put fluoride in the water until we are blue in the face and it will not have the lasting benefit that people say it will have.

Mr. Pavitt: My hon. Friend will have studied the Royal Commission's report. He is right to say that the addition of fluoride is only one of 23 ways of preventing oral disease, malfunction of teeth and gastro-enterology. But it is one thing that would help ordinary working class kids. If, after 1 April, when dental charges will be massively increased, parents are able to take children to the dentist every six months, pay extra for fluoride milk and do a number of other things, all that will be helpful. But fluoridation will be one method of helping the children of the 4 million unemployed, at a cost of 10p per citizen per year, by giving them some protection for some considerable time.

Mr. Speaker: Before the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire) is tempted to go down that track, may I bring him back to the new clause, which is about admission to meetings. That point is rather broad of the new clause and may lead him to indulge in a Second Reading speech.

Mr. McGuire: One gets led down many alleyways and byways that one did not intend when giving way. However, I say with great respect that this is a debating Chamber and we devalue it if we simply read out rather quickly a speech without giving way. In fact, that is contrary to our tradition. Whether one can debate with great expertise or simply with great determination and sincerity, one must defend one's argument, and that is what I am trying to do.
I am trying to consider the form of the meeting and the purpose of letting the public in. Is it merely to rail against those who have taken decisions which we disagree with or to try to influence those decisions? We should be trying to find out the best use that can be made of those meetings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) and I have been friends since I came into the. House. He has been here for longer than I have and we all know how he approaches matters and what motivates him. He is motivated by what I would call his Socialist: principles. However, they do not motivate me any less. I am proud to be a Labour Member, and I too want to help anybody who is disadvantaged in life. My hon. Friend is trying to persuade me that we should try to find a means to help the 4 million unfortunate children who, if they do not receive some assistance from the State by means of a fluoride additive, whether it comes from water, medicine or in some other way, will grow up with bad teeth or with teeth that will be subject to more stresses and strains than


if the Government had taken on board the need to help them. I hope that my hon. Friend is persuading the Minister because that is the most important, thing.
That is a dangerous argument because we must then ask about other important or more important matters with which the State should concern itself in the upbringing of children. Let us consider a better way in which to help children get fluoride into their bodies at an early age. I am only saying that it cannot be right to ram it down the throats of 40 million or 50 million who will gain no benefit at all. I am glad that I have carried my hon. Friend with me—

Mr. Best: I have followed the hon. Gentleman's argument closely and I agree with much of what he said. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) said that there was no substantial difference between adding chlorine to the water to make it potable and adding fluoride for the purposes of prophylaxis. But is there not a fundamental difference between adding something to a substance to prevent it from doing harm and adding something to a substance to have a positive effect on somebody's health?. Those are the two issues. It is manifest, axiomatic and patent from the argument about where the difference lies that the hon. Gentleman has not carried his hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South with him.

Mr. McGuire: One tries to accomplish many difficult jobs in life. I doubt whether I could carry the hon. Gentleman with me in a 10-minute intervention. The hon. Gentleman and I serve on the same Committee and must declare an interest in that we are both opposed to artificially fluoridating water for whatever assumed benefit.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must return to the new clause.

Mr. McGuire: You are right, Mr. Speaker, to remind me of that. However, as I said earlier, part of our tradition — in which I know you are a great believer, and you uphold the rights of Back Benchers — is that we give way to our colleagues. If we did not, your job would be made much more difficult as you would continually be calling order and there would be absolute pandemonium. We must try to defend our arguments. I realise that I am doing that in a botched manner, but it is the best that I can do.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) must try to persÚade my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) that this matter is not on all fours. This point is relevant to the issue of meetings because such matters will have to be debated. No doubt someone will try to explain why there should be more fluoridation. I understand that 33 substances are already added to the water, and some may ask what difference 34 would make. I do not know whether 33 is the correct number; it could be 23, 33 or 43. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South is an authority on these matters. Indeed, if I get the opportunity to read a list in my possession, I shall keep the debate going for a few more minutes. I have no doubt that the substances have wicked-sounding Latin names that would frighten us to death — other than those who understand Latin, and I am not one of them. The meetings

will have to persuade the public that they add those 33 substances to the water to make it wholesome and potable and to take out any bugs and pollution. However, none of them is put in to achieve the same purpose as fluoride—

Mr. Lawrence: Is not the truth of what the hon. Gentleman has said borne out by the fact that the decision of the Strathclyde court that fluoride did not make water potable has caused the Government to introduce the Bill? Other additives to water help to make it wholesome. But, according to the court ruling, fluoride does not do that. Therefore, the distinction is well and truly made legally and the hon. Gentleman is right in what he says.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That may be, but it has nothing to do with the committee meetings about which the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire) is speaking.

Mr. McGuire: There is no doubt that whether or not the public know that there are 33 substances or 83 substances added to the water, I want them to be aware that another substance is either already in the water or about to be added to it which should not and need not be put in.
What will be the point of the public being able to attend the meetings if they cannot influence those who will be taking the decisions? The decision-makers will not be elected. Indeed, their position must affront the democratic instincts of hon. Members. While I would not impugn the integrity of Conservative Members and say that they are in favour of secrecy whereas Opposition Members are not, I urge them to agree that we should not have secrecy where it is not necessary, especially when, as in this case, a dark cloak may be thrown over the deliberations of those who, unlike hon. Members, are not subject to recall or, to be topical, any form of reselection.

Mr. Marlow: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of reselection—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that reselection will be discussed at the meetings about which the hon. Member is speaking.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman is deeply concerned about consultation, participation and the involvement of the public. Does he think that the public have been involved thus far in this process of fluoridation? For example, has there been a clamour for the water supply to be fluoridated?

Mr. McGuire: The thought of reselection concentrates the mind wonderfully. I wish reselection applied to those who form the district and regional health authorities. The same would then apply to them as applies to me. If I do or say something to which a number of my constituents object reselection gives them power to do something about it.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the public should not only be admitted to these meetings but should, under reasonable conditions, be allowed to address them and put their point of view?

Mr. McGuire: I was about to deal with that point. I agree that it would be cosmetic simply to say that the public will be admitted if that will be the end of their role and they will have no influence over those who take the decisions. Such meetings will then be a fraud and a charade, especially as there has been no clamour from the public for the water supply to be fluoridated.
The 5 million people who are at present receiving fluoridated water have not been informed. When I first came to the House I had no definite views on fluoridation. How are Members of Parliament enabled to make decisions on matters on which they have no great knowledge? We receive much bumf but also much informed correspondence which gives expert views on different subjects, including fluoridation. When I read the information about fluoridation, I formed the opinion that it was not a good thing. I sense that I am incurring your displeasure, Mr. Speaker. I shall come back to the narrow point of the form and content of the meetings. If the public are to be informed, there will have to be a public debate. The views of people who are passionately opposed to fluoridation must be heard and not just the views of John Public.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) gave an impressive list of people who had written learned articles on the dangers of fluoridation. These were not corner boy doctors but men of great eminence who can be subjected to questioning and counter argument. If the meetings are to be open to the public, there should be informed participation in the debate. If it is the intention of the Government that the public will be informed in this way, I rest content that not much fluoridation will take place. Most of all, those 5 million who now receive fluoridated water will want fluoridation discontinued.

Sir Dudley Smith: The hon. Gentleman is making a salient and important point, that apart from the public the people who make up these bodies may not themselves have expert knowledge. He said that he had to find out the information when he became a Member of the House. Surely those who serve on the health authorities will need expert advice. The hon. Gentleman referred to 37 or 38 substances which are put in water. In these circumstances, it is important that members of these bodies should be properly briefed.

Mr. McGuire: That is a most salient point.
Most hon. Members have received recently a letter headed "Fuel for the fluoridation bandwagon". It refers to deception by a man whose evidence is listened to with great interest; I think it is better that I do not mention his name. It persuaded many people to take a view contrary to that which I would wish them to have. This man said:
If I thought that there was the slightest risk from fluoridating water supplies to bring the concentration of fluoride up to the low levels naturally existing already in many parts of Britain and elsewhere, I would certainly say so.
The letter we received from Dr. W. W. Yellowlees from Aberfeldy in Scotland said that that statement was written by this eminent person in 1982. I wrote to him pointing out that of the total population of the United Kingdom only about 500,000 drank naturally fluoridated water.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) has made a relevant intervention. The public must be persuaded and informed, and it must be understood that some of those who are to take decisions are in possession of false information and will act upon it. It is proposed that we should add fluoride to the water and the hon. and learned Member for Burton has said that there will have to be a tenfold increase in the level of fluoride in the water to reach the assumed natural level. We must remember that only about 500,000 receive that water. If the average

John Public picks up only parts of the argument, he will think that the Government want to make available something which is naturally beneficial. He will have the impression that he and others are deprived because they are not receiving that which is naturally beneficial. In effect, the Government are saying, "We cannot do anything about that in a natural sense but we shall do so in an unnatural sense."
It is important that on occasions the experts should have their evidence checked and that they should be cross-examined. We require an informed debate so that the public can be made aware of what is in store for them. There will be those who say, "I think that fluoridation is a good thing and I am willing to take the risk." They will be willing to surrender the principle of John Stuart Mill that over his own mind and body the individual is sovereign. They will be prepared to delegate that responsibility to another body. The public should be in a position to challenge the assertions of the so-called experts.

Mr. Fairbairn: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has allowed me to intervene, but I was not asking him to do so. However, now that he has given way to me, as it were, I shall make an intervention. That is the sort of thing that John Stuart Mill might well have said.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) will be helpful to the House by keeping the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire), who has now been speaking for an hour, on the rails. We must concentrate on the proceedings in the committees that are under discussion. The debate should not be carried any wider that that.

Mr. Fairbairn: As one who is anxious to contribute to the debate myself, Mr. Speaker, I would rather keep the hon. Gentleman on the buffers. Even if the requirements that the hon. Gentleman suggests are implemented, whereby water authorities in England and Wales would be involved in the consultative process, what possible power would be in the hands of the ordinary member of the public who was convinced that fluoride was a cumulative poison to avoid fluoridated water?

Mr. McGuire: I thought that earlier in my speech the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to catch my eye to tell me, as it were, that he wished to intervene. I probably mistook the hon. Gentleman for someone else. I shall await with interest the hon. and learned Gentleman's contribution to the debate. I am sure that he will illuminate dark corners and stimulate most hon. Members, especially those who are convinced that fluoridation is not a bad thing, to participate. In fact, one of the worst things that they could do would be to allow fluoridation.
I have tried to direct myself to the heart of the new clause, which is that the public should have a presence at the authorities' meetings. If that means that they can be present without playing a positive part in the deliberations that ensue, that cannot be said to be good enough. I would not want to touch the Bill with a barge pole, but we must deal with it as it is. If there is to be real participation, a cosmetic change will not be sufficient. However, if the new clause, which has been accepted by the Government, means what I understand it to mean, we have made some progress in improving a bad Bill.

Orders of the Day — Water (Fluoridation) Bill

Mr. Marlow: This is an important measure which will potentially affect every man, woman and child in the country—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can put the hon. Gentleman on the right track. I know that this is ah important matter, because I have been in the Chair for a long time listening to the debate. Will he tell us what will happen in these committees, which is what the new clause is about?

Mr. Marlow: This is a desperately important measure, and therefore the committees are particularly important.
So far, the Government have got this measure through purely as a result of the payroll vote. The Bill includes these committees, and potentially that is of vital importance to everyone in the country. It was not included in the Government's programme. Therefore, it is right that an hon. Member of this House should remind the other place of the lack of support in this House for the measure.
Such lack of support can also be demonstrated in relation to the new clause. I intend to be brief, because if a point is worth making it is normally better to make it quickly—

Mr. Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Marlow: I shall happily give way to my hon. and learned Friend, but I know that other hon. Members wish to speak and I am aware that Mr. Speaker would wish me to be brief.

Mr. Fairbairn: The proper constitutional reason for a typical Government acolyte, such as my hon. Friend, to be brief is that the unfortunate party on the Government side of the House has been briefed since 3.30 pm on exempted business for one and a half hours on the important motion in respect of the draft British Shipbuilders Borrowing Powers (Increase of Limit) Order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This has absolutely nothing to do with new clause 13. We must stick to the new clause, otherwise there will be chaos.

Mr. Marlow: We are addressing our minds to public participation and consultation in the context of this important measure, and this is a vital part of our consideration. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) tabled the new clause, but sadly, I find it impossible to accept it as proposed. Although I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend has said that the Government will introduce an amendment on public participation, consultation and debate, it would be wrong for the House to accept the new clause, even though it was tabled with the best of intentions.
The new clause begins with the words "Any proceedings". When do the proceedings begin? Let us suppose that the chairman of a health authority goes out to dinner with his wife and a group of friends—perhaps eight people in all. If one of them, also a member of the health authority, leans across the table and says, "What about this fluoride business? The health authority next door has it and it says that it is a good thing. Shall we have

it here?", will that be a proceeding of the health authority? When does a proceeding begin? I appreciate the point which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is trying to make, but I do not think that he has been sufficiently succinct.
As I said to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire), if we want public debate and participation, should it be at the level of the local health authority? Would it not be better to let the health experts, those looking after our health and well-being, come together and discuss these things, and then, distilling the general knowledge and beliefs of all of them, come up with their impressions, ideas and decisions and say, "Yes, we believe that we should allow our local water authority to fluoridate the water"? The water authority would then be able to make that decision. We are not telling the water authority that it should; we are saying that it may.
I believe—and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras may want to take me up on this — that the debate should come at that later stage, with the water authority.

Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman had paid as much attention to the proceedings on this Bill as he sometimes claims to have done, he might have noted that in Committee I moved a virtually identical amendment applying to water authorities. If any Tory present had voted for it along with myself and my hon. Friends, it would have got through.

Mr. Marlow: I have to be very humble and apologise abjectly to the hon. Gentleman. I have been through a great deal of the detail of the Bill, but I am afraid that I did not pick up the points that he makes.
For various reasons, I shall have to oppose the new clause. I am very much in favour of public participation and consultation — I am in favour of it generally, but particularly with regard to this very important measure.
Would it be in order at this stage, Mr. Speaker, to welcome the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), who I know is a great expert on this subject?
We are to have committees, we are to have participation. My right hon. and learned Friend has promised the House this. Who will be asked? How will they be asked? There is a lot to be discussed. There is a lot of flesh to be put on these bones. Will it be a requirement that when a meeting is to be held in which the public can participate it must be publicised—advertised in the local newspapers, for example? Who will be permitted to attend? What information will be made available? What notice should be given that a meeting is to take place? It would obviously be wrong to tell the public at 3 o'clock in the afternoon that a meeting is to be held to discuss the matter at half past four. The Government must therefore put together a sensible and satisfactory scheme so that we know how this will work.
What will these committees be considering? What information will be before them? We had a debate earlier about monitoring the effects of fluoride on human health, on teeth, on the home, on the water supply? Will it be a requirement that whenever the health authority — or whatever authority — meets, with public participation, the reports should be brought before the meeting? If so, what should those reports contain?
Who will be admitted to the meetings? Will it be all the public, or will it be councillors from the district authority,


or the county council, or parish councillors? Will other people be permitted to be represented as of right? Will the officers of the local authority be permitted to be represented? Will people from some of the local organizations—the chamber of commerce, for example — be admitted? They surely have an interest. Will the local family practitioner committee be able to be represented? Will the local BMA, the doctors, the dentists be able to attend?
I have no intention or desire to offend any of the dentists in my constituency, but one of the things that frightens me about this measure is that the dentists are in favour of it. We are told that it is good for the teeth of the nation. Since when have dentists been in favour of the good of the teeth of the nation? It is when there is something wrong with the teeth of the nation that they do business and make money. That should be considered.

Mr. Fairbairn: There is a very good reason for dentists being in favour of the Bill. They will have more visits from patients who suffer from fluorosis. Moreover, fluoridation will inevitably cause brittleness of the teeth, and dentists will have to receive much bigger fees for trying to stick together the teeth of those aged over 30.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. and learned Friend is trenchant and objective as usual. It is a matter of concern, and my hon. and learned Friend has made that point very well.
We must have participation and consultation.

Mr. Best: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Marlow: I really want to get on, but if my hon. Friend presses me, I shall give way.

Mr. Best: I shall be brief. I regret to say that I disagree with my hon. Friend. I have spoken to a good number of dentists, and I have no doubt about their bona fides. I am sure that they genuinely believe that fluoride is good for the teeth and that they are motivated by a sense of philanthropy rather than by any arcane motivation that may have been suggested to my hon. Friend. I may be naive in believing that, but I firmly believe it, and, with respect to my hon. Friend, it is wrong to cast a slur on dentists when it is unnecessary to do so, because the argument against fluoride stands on its own two feet.

Mr. Marlow: I respect what my hon. Friend has said. He has made an honest point, and I hope that he does not think that I was being flippant. I genuinely accept my hon. Friend's point that those dentists who recommend fluoride do so with the best of intentions, but I believe that they are mistaken. That is one of the fundamental reasons why, as time goes by, it will become desperately important to have a proper system of public participation.
It is particularly important to have public participation, because if it is a mistake to put this wretched substance in our water supply — as I and many of my hon. Friends believe it is—the time will come when the damage will become apparent. It is only by having available the immediate recourse of public participation in debate and discussion as of right that the authorities can be made aware as soon as things start going wrong. I am afraid that the authorities are sometimes not aware of what is happening. Sometimes, like all institutions, authorities have their own momentum and vested interests. They work together and they feel that they are the experts. Hilaire Belloc once said:

Oh! let us never, never doubt
What nobody is sure about
For people who are in the know
Assure us that it must be so.
Authorities and institutions are a bit like that. They are the clever ones who say they know, and they do not want us to know that they do not know. They pretend they know, and it is a jolly good thing if the public now and again have the right to tell them.
This issue is fundamental to the health and well-being of the nation, and it is imperative—

Mr. Eric Forth: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Marlow: I really want to get on.

Mr. Forth: In his anxiety to have public participation, is my hon. Friend not worried that, even in their wisdom, the public may be seduced by the idea of being fed fluoride as an easy way of maintaining dental health, instead of making the effort to brush their teeth? Does my hon. Friend not think that the balance between the effort of individual brushing and the easy solution of the automatic feeding of fluoride could thereby be altered, and that his argument for public participation may be at fault?

Mr. Marlow: I do not wish to stray too far from the debate. I think and hope that my hon. Friend is trying to be helpful and keep me in order. He said that if fluoride were added to the water supply in many areas the public might feel that their teeth would be all right and they could throw their toothbrushes out of the window. If the public got that impression, the damage to their teeth, whatever good fluoride might do, would be greater than at present. That is a good point, but I am not sure how it affects participation. I shall think about it.
The House must be aware that as time unwinds and we get more experience of the benefits, and more probably the problems, of fluoride in our water supplies, public participation will be absolutely fundamental.

11 pm

Mr. John Golding: If I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he speaks in support of the new clause.

Mr. Marlow: No, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would make his point better if he knew how I stand. I have every sympathy and respect for the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras for tabling the new clause. I have examined it carefully, and although the intention is right and good and I am overwhelmingly in favour of public participation in and debate on the subject, the new clause is defective. I do not feel that I can support it and I, and perhaps some of my colleagues, will wish to divide on it. We are not against the intention of the new clause. The hon. Gentleman may not know that the Government intend to introduce an amendment along these lines, about which we are happy. We are pleased with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister and with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras for tabling the new clause, but despite that, we may have to vote against the new clause.

Mr. Golding: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Golding.

Mr. Golding: I presume that I am being called to speak in the debate, as the hon. Gentleman has concluded his


remarks. I think that the hon. Gentleman's knees and arguments have given way, rather than the hon. Gentleman himself.

Mr. Marlow: I have only given way.

Mr. Golding: I thought that I was being called to speak.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Member for Northampton North (Mr. Marlow) had concluded his speech.

Mr. Golding: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was mistaken. I thought that the hon. Gentleman's knees and arguments had given way, but he has made it clear that he was giving way to an intervention.

Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am indeed giving way to an intervention. I am drawing my remarks to a conclusion, but some of my hon. Friends wish to cross-examine me on some of my points.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is giving way, that is correct. I thought that he had finished.

Mr. Golding: In what ways does the hon. Gentleman oppose the new clause?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has joined us fairly recently. We are dealing with a new clause which relates to those who should come to meetings. We have been ranging rather wide.

Mr. Golding: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The new clause states that the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 will apply with one exception. There are two parts to the new clause. One part says that the Act will apply, and the other part says that one section of the Act shall not apply. It is important to establish whether it is reasonable to apply the Act. That is what I am asking the hon. Gentleman. I wish to address my remarks first, to the part of the new clause which states that the Act should apply. Therefore, does the hon. Gentleman think that the Act should apply in any respect?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme Mr. Golding), who was not here earlier. He should know that the Government have accepted the spirit of the new clause, and, as I understand it, they will introduce a similar amendment in another place.

Mr. Golding: In that case, my intervention is even more important. Having heard that the Government are prepared to accept it in spirit, I wish in body to oppose it. I want the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) to elucidate his arguments so that I can follow him.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you have just compressed my argument succinctly into two sentences, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) compressed his argument into three or four sentences, is it in order for the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) to come into a debate one and a half hours after it started and ask for a brief resumé of the arguments so far?

Mr. Speaker: It is not in order, and I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced parliamentarian, would ask for such a breach of our procedures.

Mr. Marlow: Although you have ruled it out of order, Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. However, I hope he will forgive me if I do not, because I am not addressing that part of the new clause. He can advance his own arguments, to which we shall listen with great interest and respect.

Mr. Richard Holt: My hon. Friend has concentrated on the participation of the public in this exercise, but the new clause is flawed in that it says nothing about the participation by the other side. It does not mention a quorum or how many people should be present. It does not say how long the authority will allow the debate to continue. The new clause could be taken at face value, someone could move that the public be allowed in, but three minutes later could move that the committee move on to next business. In that case, all participation would be nullified.

Mr. Marlow: I accept my hon. Friend's point. The new clause, against which I shall vote, says that it shall be subject to the Public Bodies (Admissions to Meetings) Act 1960. I do not know what that means, so I do not know how much it helps us. As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister said that the Government would introduce amendments in another place. Before the debate ends, I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend would wish to advise the House, not as to the specific contents, but as to what the building blocks of those amendments will be. During my speech I have made several requests for information about how the public meetings will be organised, who will be allowed to attend, the notice of the meeting, and how what comes out of the meeting will be published. All those bits and pieces are important when one sets up such public participation exercises. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to give us further instruction on this matter before we conclude this debate.
I have tried to make, as briefly as I can, a few important points on the new clause. Sadly, I feel constrained to oppose it, although I appreciate the motives of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras in putting it forward.

Mr. Fairbairn: I cannot favour new clause 13. It may seem odd that I say that today, firstly, because it does not take Scotland into account. This afternoon, there was a Ten-minute Bill of peculiar stupidity moved by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), which was defeated on my opposition. I regret to say that, on a Bill which is alleged to be based on a free vote, the entire Government side have been whipped to be in attendance since 3.30 pm. Having nothing else to do—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is miles wide of the attendance at meetings. The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) is abusing procedures by seeking to introduce that argument.

Mr. Fairbairn: With great respect, I do not think that I am. It might seem to be contradictory for me at one time of the day to be grateful for a payroll vote to defeat a Bill


which makes Scotland a funny little island, and then later to object to a new clause because it does not bother to consider Scotland.
New clause 13 involves the princple that the meetings of a health authority should be open to the public. That is not satisfactory. We are talking about making every person in the United Kingdom ingest water which has been contaminated with a substance which the most reputable scientists on earth believe to be poisonous.
No one should imagine that anything that I say is an attempt to delay the House because the principles are far too important.
Lord Jauncey's judgment is irrelevant to what I am about to say, because it was about sodium fluoride. We are now dealing, among other things, with fluorosilicic acid. May I read this to the House?
Introduction Fison's Fluorosilicic Acid, Foremost in Fluoridation—Fison's Limited. Fertiliser Division:
General: Fluorosilicic acid is a highly toxic and highly corrosive liquid

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Nonsense.

Mr. Fairbairn: My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) might think that that is nonsense, but Fison's do not.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) because he undoubtedly knows a great deal about the subject and he is deeply offended by the suggestion that he is a mere York shouting from a sedentary position. My hon. Friend has a deep, detailed technical knowledge. There is a danger among those of us who have a casual technical qualification of patronising the deep learning and technical knowledge of people like my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley who wish to express their views.

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) is misleading the House.

Mr. Speaker: I suspect that he is.

Mr. Fairbairn: I would he the last to forgo the valued judgment of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) is an expert on nonsense.
11.15 pm
Those who will provide fluorosilicic acid say:
It is listed in schedule 1 the Petroleum to Corrosive Substances (Order 1970), S.I. 1970 No. 1945 precautions:—
these are substances that we shall have to drink—
Care must be exercised while handling this material. The vapour must be inhaled. Due to the highly corrosive and toxic nature of the product"—
which is to be added to our water supply for the people who have toothache when they are five—
particular attention must be paid to ensure that only suitably constructed storage and handling equipment is used and that the vapour is not inhaled.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to listen to my hon. and learned Friend, but I am finding it difficult because of all the chattering that is going on.

Mr. Speaker: Come on.

Mr. Greg Knight: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sitting next to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) and I am having difficulty in hearing him. I wonder whether he could start his speech again.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Uncharacteristically the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) is not being ingenious about this matter. If he related his remarks to the committees or even said that the chairman would say what the hon. and learned Member is saying he might be in order.

Mr. Fairbairn: I do not want to start again. The Government accept in vague principle the concept that perhaps in England and Wales, but not in Scotland, there should be the vague consultation proposed in the new clause. Every member of the public—who will not be consulted—will have to drink a substance containing a chemical which those who produce it think is included in suitable proportions. That is how this matter is related to this vague bureaucratic consultation which will not protect any member of the public from this repulsive substance.

Mr. Eric Forth: My hon. and learned Friend has referred to the vote taken earlier today which sought to make a distinction between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Will my hon. and learned Friend express a view on the different treatment that may be required in the various committees in the context of the difference between Scottish and English law? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that these committees may have to be treated and constituted differently to take due regard of the essential differences, between Scottish and English law, on which my hon. and learned Friend is a great expert?

Mr. Fairbairn: I accept that. New clause 13 does not take the structure of Scottish local government into account at all. Once some vague consultation procedure operates—my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister gave blasé and, as ever, flippant assent to that procedure — the public will have no choice but to drink a substance which has certain qualities. The producers of that substance say:
In Handling Full protective clothing, including goggles, gloves, boots and a PVC suit, should be worn… It is essential that tap water is available near handling points and that eyewash bottles are suitably sited.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is this the type of information that the chairmen or other specialist advisers at the meeting will give to those who attend the meeting?

Mr. Fairbairn: I think that that is extremely unlikely, because new clause 13 is just another gloss on what is a threat to the public. The producers of this beastly substance continue:
Fisons, foremost in fluoridation".
This is their advertisement. Do the producers go on to say, Hurrah for fluoride in the water"? No, they do not. It says:
Health hazards: 1 vapour—the vapour irritates all parts of the respiratory system and can cause severe lung damage. The T.L.V. (Threshold Limit Value) for fluorides … is 2·5 mg/m3 of air. (Health and Safety Executive note EH15/76). 2 Liquid—flurosilicic acid burns the eyes severely and also the skin. If swallowed, the acid would cause severe internal irritation and damage. Note: Symptoms may develop after several hours.


If we take Fison's advice we may still be here to see whether the symptoms develop during the course of the debate.
In my opinion, the new consultative process proposed in new clause 13 is insufficient, because we are talking about totalitarianism, where there is no choice. I thought that this was a country and Government that minded about freedom of choice. We cannot choose not to drink water. It is no good, as someone said to me tonight, to say, "Give them Malvern water." That is like Marie Antoinette and her, "Let them eat cake." The ordinary person cannot drink Malvern water.
In the consultative process will members of the public be able to point out to the chairman, or whoever it is, in England and Wales—it is not considered in Scotland—that green vegetables, tomatoes and root crops cumulatively absorb fluoride?
It is no good anyone talking about one part in a million. The consultative process cannot be, "We have only got one part in a million. Do you want it or not?" If someone happens to eat a great many vegetables and they happen to be cooked in fluoridated water and to be grown in fluoridated water, he will receive a massive dose of fluoride. The test is false. There is cumulative poison.
I was pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend said that people could be killed by fluoride. That was a major concession from him. What is the purpose of what we are discussing?

Mr. Golding: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell me what this is all about? Is it in connection with the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings Act) 1960? I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will explain to me how the point relates to that Act.

Mr. Fairbairn: It is a vague attempt to educate someone who has not been present throughout the debate. The bogus consultative programme in new clause 13 at which the Government have snatched enables them to say, "This is all right." Let us understand what is all right. The Government have accepted this pseudo-consultative procedure in England and Wales because it fudges the issue, and they will accept anything that fudges the issue.
Distinguished scientists think that fluoride causes cancer, cell disturbance and genetic disease. They know that it causes harm to those on kidney dialysis. Why is it being added to the water supply? Is it to prevent us voting Socialist? That at least would be a reasonable concept. Is it to make schizophrenics passive? That would be a reasonable contribution. Is it to prevent rape or disease? Not at all, it is to prevent holes in the teeth of a few children. That is the basis upon which all members of the public are to be subjected to fluoride in its natural state which is, of course, rat poison. I do not know what, under new clause 13, the purpose of the consultation will be. Is a member of the public allowed to ask whether he is being fluoridated, and whether his water can be tested?

Mr. Peter Hubbard-Miles: I have no wish to test my hon. and learned Friend's water. Is not the flaw in new clause 13 the fact that it does not provide for consultation? A chief officer could present a report to the meeting, which need not necessarily be itemised on the agenda as such, which could be accepted without

discussion, and unless the public had notice of intent to debate or consider fluoridation, they would not know anything about it until the decision had been taken.

Mr. Fairbairn: I agree with my hon. Friend. Early, the Minister said, "Good heavens, you are not seriously suggesting to the House that we would propose a measure that would require the DHSS or the local authorities to take on more manpower." If this concession is to have any meaning, of course more manpower will have to be taken on. Who is to deliver all this poison to the reservoir? Who will do all the filtration? Who will test the water? Who will receive the complaints—non-manpower?
I see that the Bill says that it has no implications for public expenditure. The Bill says that it will force local authorities and water boards to add something to the water supply that costs money and must be put in by human beings, and measured by human beings, and thus it has implications for public expenditure. However, the Bill says that there will be no additions to public expenditure. If they get phantoms to do this at no price, they should get phantoms to man the bureaucracy and we should solve all our financial problems at a stroke.

Mr. Golding: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman making these remarks because he does not intend to speak on later amendments, and wishes to retire to bed? If not, will he make it clear how they relate to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, to which the new clause applies? How do these remarks on public expenditure relate to the admission of the public and the press to meetings that have been notified, and sometimes not notified, to both press and public?

Mr. Fairbairn: I have no intention of retiring to bed until about the day after tomorrow, or the day after that. I do not wish the hon. Gentleman to imagine that there is any suggestion of my doing so. I shall tell him exactly how my remarks relate to the matter in question. It is because the public meetings Act does not provide any safeguard to the public in England and Wales, or in Scotland. Therefore, the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has suggested that if he gives his snide—his behaviour throughout the passage of the Bill has been snide and ungallant on a matter of major principle — The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) should not laugh. This is a matter of major principle, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has been snide and flippant.

Mr. Best: Unwittingly, in a moment of enthusiasm, my hon. and learned Friend has been a little unfair to the Government. He said that this measure would force fluoride down people's throats. I am afraid that he is quite wrong. It is not the Government who will seek to force fluoride down people's throats. All that the Government are seeking to do is to allow non-elected health authorities to force fluoride down people's throats when it is manifestly against their will, which is a different matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The House is moving away from the subject of the new clause.

Mr. Fairbairn: I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am not moving away from the subject of the new clause. My hon. Friend does not seem to understand that my complaint about the new clause is that in Scotland there is a different water authority, health board and local authority structure.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am sorry that so far I have only been snide and flippant. Obviously I have been treating the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend with greater courtesy than is likely to be the case in 24 hours' time if he is still speaking. However, momentarily he has, though no doubt with the assistance of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), touched on the subject matter of the amendment and therefore provides me with an opportunity to reply to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). Acceptance of the principle that underlies the new clause will apply equally to the health boards in Scotland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries requested.

Sir Hector Monro: Will my hon. and learned Friend explain to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister that that is not what we are talking about. Our point has got nothing to do with the health boards in Scotland. We are dealing with the water authority, which is a regional council.

Mr. Fairbairn: Although the Minister slipped into the Chief Whip's seat, no doubt nudged by one of his hon. Friends who told him that I had called him snide and flippant, but did not quite edge along to the Dispatch Box for fear that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland might worry him about it, may I point out to him that we are talking about a quite different matter. My right hon. and learned Friend said that the new clause will apply equally to Scotland. It cannot apply equally to Scotland because the situation in Scotland is totally different.

Mr. Clarke: In case the House should think that I look upon my hon. and learned Friend as a reliable messenger, I hasten to add that I had no other to carry the message than my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries that during the last three hours the whole debate has been about only the health authorities and health boards in Scotland. So far as I can see, it appertains to no other subject matter whatsoever. As we are referring to the desirability of public debate in both cases, the Government are saying that so far as the original exchange was concerned the proceedings should be held in public in both countries and that we shall make this a statutory obligation.

Mr. Fairbairn: The proceedings in Scotland are held in public. The trouble with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister is that he does not understand this. I suggest that he moves a little closer to the Under-Secretary of State to find out what the position in Scotland is. While he does so I shall continue with my remarks. If he then wishes to intervene again — flippantly, snidely or otherwise—I shall be more than happy to allow him to do so. Surely the major fallacy of new clause 13 is the proposition that a substance, which may be of some use in preventing dental caries but which is thought by most scientists to be a danger to health, even to the point of mortality, should be added by means of Government authority to the only source of drinking water that there is. I take it that this must be a matter of principle or the payroll vote would not be here on a free vote, nor would the whole of the Government side have been here since half past three this afternoon on a bogus order about shipbuilding which is not opposed by the Opposition. The Minister takes the view that water supplies should be adulterated in

order to achieve possible help for children with holes in their teeth. I understand that cigarette packets carry a Government health warning. The Government are satisfied, not on a balance of doubt or probability, that smoking causes cancer. It would be easy to add something to the water which would make anybody who smokes vomit or feel nauseous and either give up cigarettes or water. Perhaps the Minister would tell them to move on to the Malvern water.

Sir Hector Monro: Highland Spring water.

Mr. Fairbairn: Yes, that comes from my constituency. If anybody had told me 10 years ago that they could persuade a Scotsman to buy water at 50p a bottle I would have said that they were mad. But the English are mad and they are buying it in vast quantities.

Mr. Best: The Government are satisfied that smoking is harmful to health and therefore merits health warnings being placed on cigarette packets. If the Government are satisfied that fluoride is beneficial to health and that there should be mass medication—I use that phrase as a form of shorthand although I know that my hon. and learned Friend does not accept it — through the medium of fluoride, is not the natural corollory of that in reverse to say that the Government should ban smoking because they are satisfied that it is harmful and causes cancer?

Mr. Fairbairn: This is an important matter. If my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister takes the view that the consultation process provided under new clause 13 for England and Wales, which does not affect Scotland — perhaps one day my right hon. and learned Friend, who gives an impression of believing himself to be omniscient, may discover the position in Scotland — is a sensible process, I am bound to say that I cannot agree. It is not a question of just drinking water to which fluoride is added one part to a million, but of eating food cooked in that water, eating food that has absorbed that water, and all the other methods of accumulating the fluoride in that water. No consultation that is proposed in new clause 13 can in any way enable the ingestion of fluoride, which is cumulative, to be measured or controlled. That is why such a consultation process is bogus. It would deceive the public into imagining falsely that their water supply was safe because bureaucrats in England and Wales had been consulted.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Surely the people about whom my hon. and learned Friend should be talking are the unelected appointed members of the health authorities in England and Wales. Will he advise me, from his considerable knowledge of the law, perhaps primarily of Scotland but to a limited extent of England and Wales, whether it will be necessary for the appointed unelected members of the health authorities, which may permit the public in when the matter of fluoridation is being discussed, should declare an interest? Those appointed people, may, in some cases, be involved with industrial companies who sell fluoride as a by-product of their manufacturing process and will therefore have a vested interest. Will such unelected appointed members have a responsibility in the presence of the public to declare that they have a vested interest?

Mr. Fairbairn: They would have no duty to declare any interest. But if the verbosity of the Bill were to be believed, that it had no effect on public expenditure, the


fluoride would be given away by those kindly gentlemen who would deliver it, put it in the water and test it for nothing.

Mr. Lawrence: My hon. and learned Friend has returned to the single most important point that he has been making. I listened carefully to what he said and I am pleased that he has done so. It is coupled with his unfair attack on our right hon. and learned Friend the Minister. Our right hon. and learned Friend the Minister is squirming because during a telephone call the Chancellor said, "All right Ken, you can have this Bill provided that there is not one penny of cost to the public sector borrowing requirement." Every hint of a concession by my right hon. and learned Friend is likely to incur cost, which will be utterly unacceptable to the Cabinet and to the Chancellor. My hon. and learned Friend must understand that that is why our right hon. and learned Friend is in a very difficult position.
There is no way that any concession on the lines requested by my hon. and learned Friend can be introduced without incurring cost. That would be outside the ambit of the Bill and the Government would be making a mockery of it if they conceded one inch. Because they cannot concede one inch, the only alternative is to drop the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not go outside the Bill or even outside the new clause.

Mr. Fairbairn: I shall not go outside the new clause. I withdraw as uncharitable my suggestion that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister was either flippant or snide. I do so because the Government have been jumped by their officials to get through this ridiculous totalitarian Bill against the conscience of the House. They have Whipped the payroll — many, if not most, of whose members believe that the fluoridation of the public water supply is wrong and immoral, including the Scottish Whip who until recently was vice-chairman of the Scottish Still Water Association. Further, in order to make some sort of pretence that the payroll vote was not dragooned by the supreme Soviets into voting, it was brought here on the bogus motion on British Shipbuilders borrowing power.
I regard any Government who do not treat it as a matter of absolute principle that we do not doctor the water supply as failing in their duty to democracy.

Mr. Williams: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a point that is new to me — that his colleagues have been dragooned here in relation to the business to follow this debate. I shall make it clear to all those tired Conservative Members who wish to go home that the Opposition have no intention of voting on that motion.

Mr. Fairbairn: I have always known that the right hon. Member was slow on the uptake, but if he did not know that fact when he received the Whip he must be very slow. It was a ruse to persuade hon. Members to be here to vote, unknowing what they would vote on a matter of principle — that every member of the public will be forced to take what distinguished scientists regard as a cumulative poison that is dangerous to health simply because officials think that somebody may benefit.

Mr. Golding: I have not yet discovered whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is speaking in support of or opposition to the new clause, or whether he, as I often do, is rehearsing the arguments so that he can make up his mind at the end of his speech. I do not know what attitude he is taking. He has not yet explained whether the public should be allowed to listen to the health athorities discuss these measures. He has not said whether the press should be admitted. He has not addressed himself to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960. I shall be glad when he addresses himself to the question.

Mr. Fairbairn: As the hon. Gentleman came into the Chamber, when we last debated the Bill, just a little earlier than this to try to get a lift home, I took the trouble to look through the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, as it affects England, and discovered that it contains no provision to enable him to cadge a lift. Why, therefore, should I address myself to his problems? The new clause is typically arrogant because those who sponsor it take the view that England and Wales are the only places on earth; it does not apply to Scotland and it is clear that the Minister does not understand the Scottish position.
I will only say in closing—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I was about to say that I will only say, in closing this part of my argument, that late at night, early in the morning and late in the afternoon though it may be, sometimes the House resorts to humour as a relief from the tedium of debate. But the Government should not misinterpret the jocularity of the House on a matter which I regard as the most dangerous interruption of human freedom that can be imagined, namely, that a poison should be put into the substance that everybody must drink. The new clause, and any other form of idiotic consultation, has no relevance to the choice of a person to drink water which has not been medicated for the purpose of halting somebody else's condition.
The Minister mentioned AIDS. I do not know whether he has yet contracted it—[Interruption.] If he does, it will not have been from me. Although this is a disease which appears to be possible of epidemic proportions, if suddenly some antidote were found which half the scientists said was harmful and half said was unharmful, the Minister would say, "Those who think that it harms you are idiots because I have got it."
No amount of consultation as granted under this so-called concession, misunderstanding the law and structure of local authorities in Scotland, will remedy the situation. If the Minister wants to appreciate the difficulties of the separation of this country, he had better learn something about Scotland, otherwise provisions such as this will promote it.
Whether he regards Miss McColl as edentate or idiotic, I assure him that she and her advisers, should this measure ever become law, will take the matter all the way in every court. I believe that they will triumph, and so they should.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order—

Mr. John Cope (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order I am about to put the Question. The Question is, That the Question be now put.

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can take a point of order only if it relates to the Division. Otherwise I will take it after the Division.

Mr. Marlow: It is related to the Division. I believe that I started making a point of order before my hon. Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a point of order relating to the Division, he must be covered.

Mr. Marlow: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I intimated before my hon. Friend moved the closure that I wished to raise a point of order. I believe that I am therefore entitled to make that point of order before my hon. Friend makes his point—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to do that. I have put the Question and the Tellers are now about to be named.

Mr. Marlow: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must put the point again. I made my point before my hon. Friend stood up. Am I not entitled to make a point of order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not appear to have understood me. I have put the Question, That the Question be now put. The House is now proceeding to come to a decision on that. I cannot have the hon. Gentleman arguing and raising points of order at this stage.

Mr. Marlow: (seated and covered): May I ask you then, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether my hon. Friend on the Front Bench actually moved, That the Question be now put, or did you say "The Question is, That the Question be now put" before he asked that the Question be put?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have made it clear that the closure was moved. It is the duty of the Chair to decide whether to accept the closure motion. I accepted the motion, which was within my discretion, and I have put the Question. The House must now proceed to come to a conclusion on that Question.

Mr. Marlow: (seated and covered): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that it is wrong to argue with the referee, but I had started to make my point of order before my hon. Friend moved the closure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Marlow: (seated and covered): May I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to give a ruling on the point that I made? I wished to raise a point of order and my hon. Friend did not move the closure. You then put the Question from the Chair. Is it in order for you to put the Question when my hon. Friend has not yet opened his mouth?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The closure was moved. The hon. Gentleman may not have heard it, but I clearly heard the closure being moved. It is in the discretion of the Chair whether to accept that motion. I did accept it and the House is now proceeding to come to a conclusion on it.

Mr. Marlow: I accept your assurance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The House having divided: Ayes 136, Noes 60.

Division No. 130]
[11.50 pm


AYES


Ancram, Michael
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Arnold, Tom
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Needham, Richard


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Nelson, Anthony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Neubert, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Newton, Tony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Nicholls, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Normanton, Tom


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Bright, Graham
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Burt, Alistair
Pattie, Geoffrey


Butcher, John
Pawsey, James


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Penhaligon, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Pollock, Alexander


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Powley, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Rathbone, Tim


Colvin, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Coombs, Simon
Rifkind, Malcolm


Cope, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Couchman, James
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Roe, Mrs Marion


Dorrell, Stephen
Rowe, Andrew


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Dunn, Robert
Ryder, Richard


Durant, Tony
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Eggar, Tim
Scott, Nicholas


Favell, Anthony
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Silvester, Fred


Fox, Marcus
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Freeman, Roger
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Gale, Roger
Spencer, Derek


Goodlad, Alastair
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Gow, Ian
Squire, Robin


Gregory, Conal
Stanley, John


Gummer, John Selwyn
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Harris, David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hayes, J.
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Henderson, Barry
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Hind, Kenneth
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Howard, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Tracey, Richard


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Trippier, David


Jessel, Toby
Viggers, Peter


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Waddington, David


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Lang, Ian
Walden, George


Lee, John (Pendle)
Ward, John


Lilley, Peter
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Watson, John


Lord, Michael
Watts, John


Luce, Richard
Wheeler, John


Lyell, Nicholas
Whitney, Raymond


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Wiggin, Jerry


Macfarlane, Neil
Wood, Timothy


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Major, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Marland, Paul



Mather, Carol
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maude, Hon Francis
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Mellor, David



NOES


Ashdown, Paddy
Bermingham, Gerald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Best, Keith


Beggs, Roy
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Beith, A. J.
Boyes, Roland


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin






Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Bruce, Malcolm
McCusker, Harold


Budgen, Nick
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Carttiss, Michael
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
McWilliam, John


Conway, Derek
Marlow, Antony


Dalyell, Tam
Maynard, Miss Joan


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Merchant, Piers


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Monro, Sir Hector


Forth, Eric
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Galley, Roy
Pike, Peter


Grist, Ian
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Ground, Patrick
Skinner, Dennis


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Haynes, Frank
Terlezki, Stefan


Hayward, Robert
Twinn, Dr Ian


Holt, Richard
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Wigley, Dafydd


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Winterton, Nicholas


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)



Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Knowles, Michael
Mr. John Golding and


Lawrence, Ivan
Mr. Michael McGuire.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 45, Noes 135.

Division No. 131]
[12.03 am


AYES


Ashdown, Paddy
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Beith, A. J.
McGuire, Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Maclean, David John


Boyes, Roland
Maynard, Miss Joan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Merchant, Piers


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Bruce, Malcolm
Penhaligon, David


Budgen, Nick
Pike, Peter


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Skinner, Dennis


Conway, Derek
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Dalyell, Tam
Terlezki, Stefan


Fatchett, Derek
Twinn, Dr Ian


Forth, Eric
Wallace, James


Ground, Patrick
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Wigley, Dafydd


Haynes, Frank
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Knowles, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lawler, Geoffrey
Mr. John McWilliam and


Lawrence, Ivan
Mr. John Golding.


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)



NOES


Ancram, Michael
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Tom
Butcher, John


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Colvin, Michael


Best, Keith
Coombs, Simon


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cope, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Peter
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Dorrell, Stephen


Bright, Graham
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Dunn, Robert


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Durant, Tony


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)





Eggar, Tim
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Pattie, Geoffrey


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Pawsey, James


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Pollock, Alexander


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Freeman, Roger
Powley, John


Gale, Roger
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Rathbone, Tim


Goodlad, Alastair
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Gow, Ian
Rifkind, Malcolm


Gregory, Conal
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Grist, Ian
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Rowe, Andrew


Hayes, J.
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hayward, Robert
Ryder, Richard


Henderson, Barry
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hind, Kenneth
Sayeed, Jonathan


Home Robertson, John
Scott, Nicholas


Howard, Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jessel, Toby
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Spencer, Derek


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Squire, Robin


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Stanley, John


Lang, Ian
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lilley, Peter
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Luce, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Lyell, Nicholas
Tracey, Richard


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Trippier, David


Macfarlane, Neil
Viggers, Peter


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Waddington, David


Major, John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Marland, Paul
Walden, George


Marlow, Antony
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Mather, Carol
Watson, John


Maude, Hon Francis
Watts, John


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Wheeler, John


Mellor, David
Whitney, Raymond


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Wiggin, Jerry


Monro, Sir Hector
Winterton, Nicholas


Moynihan, Hon C.
Wood, Timothy


Needham, Richard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Nelson, Anthony
Younger, Rt Hon George


Newton, Tony



Nicholls, Patrick
Tellers for the Noes:


Normanton, Tom
Mr. Peter Lloyd and


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Mr. Michael Neubert.


Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 18

TERMINATION OF APPLICATIONS UNDER SECTION 1(1)

'If at any time it appears to the Secretary of State that the addition of fluoride to the water supply is harmful to health he shall terminate any application made under section 1(1).'.—[Mr. Best.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 55, Noes 129.

Division No. 132]
[12.15 am


AYES


Ashdown, Paddy
Boyes, Roland


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Beith, A. J.
Bruce, Malcolm


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Budgen, Nick






Campbell-Savours, Dale
McGuire, Michael


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Marlow, Antony


Conway, Derek
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dalyell, Tam
Merchant, Piers


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Monro, Sir Hector


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Forth, Eric
Penhaligon, David


Golding, John
Rowe, Andrew


Grist, Ian
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Ground, Patrick
Skinner, Dennis


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Haynes, Frank
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Hayward, Robert
Terlezki, Stefan


Holt, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Wallace, James


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Wigley, Dafydd


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Winterton, Nicholas


Knowles, Michael



Lawrence, Ivan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Mr. Gwilym Jones and


Lester, Jim
Mr. Keith Best.


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)



NOES


Ancram, Michael
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Arnold, Tom
Lee, John (Pendle)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Lilley, Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Luce, Richard


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lyell, Nicholas


Bottomley, Peter
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Macfarlane, Neil


Bright, Graham
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Marland, Paul


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Mather, Carol


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Maude, Hon Francis


Burt, Alistair
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Butcher, John
Mellor, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Moynihan, Hon C.


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Needham, Richard


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Nelson, Anthony


Colvin, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Coombs, Simon
Newton, Tony


Cope, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Couchman, James
Normanton, Tom


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Dobson, Frank
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Dorrell, Stephen
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Dunn, Robert
Pattie, Geoffrey


Durant, Tony
Pawsey, James


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Pike, Peter


Eggar, Tim
Pollock, Alexander


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Fatchett, Derek
Powley, John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Rathbone, Tim


Gale, Roger
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Rifkind, Malcolm


Goodlad, Alastair
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Gow, Ian
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Gregory, Conal
Roe, Mrs Marion


Gummer, John Selwyn
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Ryder, Richard


Hayes, J.
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Henderson, Barry
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hind, Kenneth
Scott, Nicholas


Home Robertson, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Howard, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Jessel, Toby
Soley, Clive


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Spencer, Derek





Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Watson, John


Squire, Robin
Watts, John


Stanley, John
Wheeler, John


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Whitney, Raymond


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Wolfson, Mark


Thurnham, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Tracey, Richard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Trippier, David
Younger, Rt Hon George


Viggers, Peter



Waddington, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Waldegrave, Hon William
Mr. Ian Lang and


Walden, George
Mr. John Major.


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

FLUORIDATION OF WATER SUPPLIES AT REQUEST OF HEALTH AUTHORITIES

Amendment proposed, No. 2 in page 1, line 13, at end insert—
'(2) There shall be no increase in the fluoride content of the water supplied by a water undertaker in England and Wales unless approval is given for such action by a majority in favour of it in a county council or councils, or in each district council, in the area to be affected.'.—[Mr. Beith.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 54, Noes 124.

Division No. 133]
[12.25 am


AYES


Ashdown, Paddy
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Knowles, Michael


Best, Keith
Lawrence, Ivan


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Boyes, Roland
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
McGuire, Michael


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Maclean, David John



Budgen, Nick
Marlow, Antony


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Maynard, Miss Joan


Carttiss, Michael
Merchant, Piers


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Conway, Derek
Penhaligon, David


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Rowe, Andrew


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Forth, Eric
Skinner, Dennis


Galley, Roy
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Golding, John
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Grist, Ian
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Ground, Patrick
Terlezki, Stefan


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Wallace, James


Haynes, Frank
Wigley, Dafydd


Hayward, Robert
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Holt, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Winterton, Nicholas


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)



Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Mr. Malcolm Bruce.


NOES


Ancram, Michael
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Arnold, Tom
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Butcher, John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bottomley, Peter
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Colvin, Michael


Bright, Graham
Coombs, Simon






Cope, John
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Couchman, James
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Pattie, Geoffrey


Dobson, Frank
Pawsey, James


Dorrell, Stephen
Pike, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Pollock, Alexander


Dunn, Robert
Powley, John


Durant, Tony
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Rathbone, Tim


Eggar, Tim
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fatchett, Derek
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Roe, Mrs Marion


Gale, Roger
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Ryder, Richard


Goodlad, Alastair
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Gow, Ian
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gummer, John Selwyn
Scott, Nicholas


Henderson, Barry
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hind, Kenneth
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Howard, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Spencer, Derek


Jessel, Toby
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Squire, Robin


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Stanley, John


Lang, Ian
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lilley, Peter
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Thurnham, Peter


Luce, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Lyell, Nicholas
Trippier, David


Macfarlane, Neil
Viggers, Peter


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Waddington, David


Major, John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Marland, Paul
Walden, George


Mather, Carol
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Maude, Hon Francis
Watson, John


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Watts, John


Mellor, David
Wheeler, John


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Whitney, Raymond


Monro, Sir Hector
Wiggin, Jerry


Moynihan, Hon C.
Wolfson, Mark


Needham, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Nelson, Anthony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Neubert, Michael
Younger, Rt Hon George


Newton, Tony



Nicholls, Patrick
Tellers for the Noes:


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Mr. Peter Lloyd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Further consideration adjourned. — [Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered this day.

Mr. Golding: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I consider it a great discourtesy that the Minister moved that further consideration be adjourned after I had travelled a long way to speak. My point of order is that we could not hear the reply when you asked "What day?" On what day is the Bill to be taken again?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This day.

British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I beg to move,
That the draft British Shipbuilders Borrowing Powers (Increase of Limit) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
The draft order before us tonight concerns the borrowing limit placed upon British Shipbuilders. This is the statutory ceiling on the funds that British Shipbuilders may acquire from the Government or elsewhere — specifically public dividend capital, loans from the National Loans Fund and borrowings from the market. It does not apply to payments under the intervention fund or the shipbuilding redundancy payments scheme — [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order, perhaps the Minister will wait a moment, so that we can hear him. Will hon. Members please leave the Chamber quietly?

Mr. Butcher: The limit currently stands at £1,100 million, having been raised by order last June from £1,000 million. We now propose that it be raised again, under the terms of the British Shipbuilders Borrowing Powers Act 1983, by £100 million to £1,200 million.
Let me stress that this is a purely permissive measure, raising the ceiling on the amounts that British Shipbuilders may borrow. It is not in itself a commitment to expenditure. Whether and what funds will be provided will be a separate matter for Parliament, dealt with through the normal Estimates procedure.
The reason for bringing forward this order is straightforward. When we introduced the last order in June 1984, we told the House that British Shipbuilders' Borrowing stood at £869 million and that we had allowed, through the external financing limit, for a further £217 million of external finance in 1984–85. The majority of that finance has been provided through public dividend capital and through the National Loans Fund and other loans associated with the modernisation of Vickers at Barrow-in-Furness. By the end of March 1985, we therefore expect total borrowing to amount to about £.1,080 million.
For the financial year 1985–86, the House knows that we have set an external financing limit of £36 million, after taking account of expected proceeds from the sale of British Shipbuilders' warship yards. As part of this will be intervention fund, which does not count against the borrowing limit, it might be thought that British Shipbuilders could pass through 1985–86 still within the £1,100 million limit, but there are two areas of risk.
The first is one of timing. If most of the sales of warship yards take place later in the year, British Shipbuilders' borrowings will continue to rise in the early part of the year, possibly over the limit. Secondly, as the House knows, the completion accounts relating to the sale of Scott Lithgow have yet to be finalised. It is possible that when they are, British Shipbuilders will need to meet further costs arising from the sale.
This order, if approved by the House, will fully exhaust the provision for raising the limit under the 1983 Act. As long as British Shipbuilders remains unprofitable, its borrowings, albeit offset in the short-term by sale


proceeds, will continue to rise. At this stage I cannot tell the House when or what further legislation may be necessary in due course. We shall review the position in the autumn, in the light of the progress of the corporation, the level of sales proceeds from the warship yards, the levels of intervention fund support approved by the Commission and the level of general support that we are able to commit within the constraints of public expenditure. We shall then introduce a Bill if appropriate.
We have had no shortage of debates in the House on one aspect or another of shipbuilding. Since Christmas the House has had two wide-ranging debates in the context of the Shipbuilding Bill to extend the shipbuilding redundancy payments scheme, currently being considered in another place. I shall therefore confine myself tonight to a short review of what the corporation has achieved since we laid the last order of this sort in June 1984, and to a few words about the prospects that we see for the rest of 1985. I am sure that that will remain the pre-occupation of hon. Members, as ever with debates on ship building.
In June 1984 the corporation was just recovering from the traumatic experience of the failure of Scott Lithgow and its subsequent rescue from oblivion through the sale to Trafalgar House. Our policy to dispose of the corporation's shiprepair interests was already in hand and Tyne Shiprepairs, Readheads and Grangemouth had rejoined the private sector. Considerable restructuring was in hand throughout the corporation, with 13,000 jobs lost in the first six months of 1984, and three small yards, Goole, Henry Robb and Clelands sadly forced to close through lack of work. Since then we have seen further radical developments both of our policy towards the industry and within the corporation itself.
First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in July 1984 our intention to return all warship interests and their remaining shiprepair and minor engineering interests to the private sector. British Shipbuilders has since issued sale documents for Brooke Marine, Hall Russell and Yarrow and has received bids for all three yards. The House will appreciate that I cannot give more detailed information about the identities of the bidders, or the prices, for this could prejudice the sale negotiations. British Shipbuilders is also pressing on with the preparation of sale documents for the other four yards. I understand that it will probably be ready to issue these within the next two months.
The two remaining BS shiprepair companies — Falmouth and Vosper Shiprepair—are also currently on the market. British Shipbuilders have been negotiating with several potential purchasers but have not yet been able to reach unconditional agreement on terms which the corporation regards as satisfactory.
At the same time, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that we had received the corporation's corporate plan and that we fully endorsed it primary aim of concentrating resources on a stable, cost-effective mainstream merchant shipbuilding business. The corporation has since then devoted great effort to achieving that aim. I have already described how far it is down the road of disposing of the non-merchant parts of the business. In addition, it has been pursuing its plan objective of restructuring the organisation on a basis designed to regionalise and make much efficient use of resources. The restructuring of its engine building operations from five to two main sites and the creation of a single engine building company, Clark Kincaid Ltd, provides a very clear

example. This has led, sadly and inevitably, to job losses. Since June 1984 the corporation has announced 1,285 redundancies on the merchant and engine building side of the operation. British Shipbuilders has a continuing need to make itself more competitive and to win more work.
Equally there have been job losses on the warship side, principally at Swan Hunter, Vospers and Cammell Laird. This is despite the recent placing of the orders for type 22 frigates at Swan Hunter and at Cammell Laird and the announcement that Swan Hunter will, subject to agreement on price and delivery, get the order for the next type 23 frigate.
But again I have to say that these losses, sad though they are, are the price of past failures, in this case the inability to obtain a single major warship export order in the last 10 years or to compete effectively in the market for merchant ships.
Hon. Members will be aware that since the House last debated these topics in the debate on the redundancy payments scheme a significant amount of good news has emanated from British Shipbuilders. An order has been placed at Smith's dock for four ships, ultimately destined for use by Cuba. I welcome this considerable success for one of British Shipbuilders' most productive yards At Austin and Pickersgill, where the order position was desperate indeed, management and unions reached very rapid agreement on new working practices and arrangements which have enabled British Shipbuilders to proceed with an order for two ships for another foreign owner. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has just placed an order for an advanced research vessel at Ailsa whose sister yard, Ferguson's on the Clyde has already this year obtained other valuable orders.
Most recently Govan has of course secured a £38 million order from North Sea Ferries for a major ferry of the latest design. This is a particularly welcome development, both for the work it provides for one of British Shipbuilders' most efficient yards and for the opportunity it provides for British Shipbuilders to re-enter the market for high value passenger vessels. And the string of orders has meant good news for British Shipbuilders' reorganised engine building operation, Clark Kincaid, which now has a valuable base load of six slow speed engine orders. Looking a little ahead, it is already well-known that Govan is in the running for a further major order from a Turkish owner and that Sunderland is looking at a number of prospects, including the joing development with ITM of a heavy-lift crane barge.
As a result of this progress and the considerable efforts being made by British Shipbuilders under its chairman, Mr. Graham Day, it now seems likely that it will get very close to or reach its stated order target for 1984–85 of 200,000 compensated gross registered tonnes.
Against this backdrop of a fight-back by the industry, the Government too have been fighting in Brussels to secure approval of higher rates of intervention fund. We were unable to reach a satisfactory agreement with the outgoing Commission and have now renewed our efforts to persuade the new Commission of the justice and logic of our case. We have already pressed our case with the new competition commissioner, Mr. Sutherland, and we intend to press it further when my hon. Friend sees him next week. Despite the orders I have announced, it is vital to the very survival of merchant shipbuilding in the United Kingdom in the next few years that we should get early


agreement to a temporary increase in intervention fund rates to enable our industry to compete with the unrealistic prices still being quoted in the far east. I am now genuinely optimistic that the end of our long battle is in sight and that a satisfactory new aid regime will soon be in place. Meanwhile, we have of course been operating interim arrangements within the European rules. The raft of recent new orders is testament enough to the effectiveness of these arrangements.
We have had a long night and I know that some hon. Members want to contribute to the debate, but I cannot let pass the opportunity to pay the highest compliment to Graham Day. He has not received the best and most optimistic comment from some Opposition Members. I have every confidence that the corporation, under its most radical and innovative chairman yet, will provide the plan for the future and implement it. I urge the House to approve the order.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Like the Under-Secretary of State, I and my hon. Friends are aware of the long preceding debate. None of us would wish to delay the House unduly and we shall not oppose the order. However, the Under-Secretary's statement was surprisingly detailed and some questions arise. I imagine that he will have the answers readily to hand.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is some doubt and dispute between those with a continuing interest in where the £1 billion for BS has gone. It would be helpful to have a breakdown of what has gone into working capital, trading losses and fixed investment to secure the future of the yards. If the fixed investment could be split between military and civil business we would have some idea of what future to envisage for those yards that will remain with BS after the Government have finished hawking off what are the only presently attractive parts of the industry. I do not expect all that information now, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will write to me on those points.
As the pattern of sales emerges over the next few months, it would be helpful to see who has got what of the public share that has gone into the companies. It would be reassuring to see something being put back into what will remain in the public sector.
I presume that the 200,000 compensated gross registered tonnes are for those yards that will remain in the public sector, or does that apply to what is still within BS? I imagine that the target is for those yards that will remain. If not, what will be the forward coverage for those yards that will not be sold off? We know that the Government made adequate provision. They have written off all the debts and pushed out what military orders they can. We welcome that. As the Minister said, it has not prevented severe redundancies at Cammell Laird, Vosper Thornycroft and Swan Hunter in the military sector. But we welcome those orders. We are not grumbling. Indeed, we have been pushing the Government to give them. However, we should also be keen to have the order level related to not just the military business, about which we have been well informed recently, but also to the forward order cover of those yards that will not be flogged off by the Government.
We cannot, as we have often made clear previously, share the hon. Gentleman's rosy view of the future. We have said before that the Opposition have no grounds for imagining that there will be a solid base for a continuing civil commercial sector — the cost-effective constant mainstream civil business. Some progress has been made on a small scale in some yards and we welcome that, but without continuing Government support, of a kind that we have had no evidence of, for what will remain in the public sector, we fear that we shall see the industry disintegrate completely.
It may be that the negotiations are still at such a delicate stage that the hon. Gentleman cannot be more clear about the state of the Commission's negotiations but some information would help all hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Minister of State was pushed on that point previously and he said that he could not be expected to state precisely what level of funding he was pushing for or what percentage that would represent by way of grant or support to the industry.
If the Minister could give us some idea of how far the negotiations have proceeded — he was a little bullish in his remarks on this—and fill in the details a little, such as the size of funding, the percentage grant and the subvention that might be permissible within the EEC regime, that would be helpful and might justify what he called the fruits of the long battle that are now in sight.
We welcome the extension of the powers but we oppose the flogging off of the yards. Is the Minister standing by the statement that if the military yards do not find buyers — of which Yarrow is already on the market and the others about to be so—those yards will be closed? We need a clear answer on that tonight. We believe that they should stay in the public sector. We are opposed to them being flogged off, but even more are we opposed to them being closed if buyers are not found.
We want to know where the money has gone between the military and civil businesses and between the various categories of investment. We want to know the forward order load for the civil yards that remain within British Shipbuilders after the haphazard auction has reached its lamentable end. We want to know precisely where the 200,000 CGRT has been found. If the Minister can fill us in on the negotiations with the Commission, that would be helpful.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: As the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) said, this order extends the borrowing powers of British Shipbuilders and no one would wish to oppose that.
Some questions arise to which I hope the Minister will reply. Given one or two of the matters upon which he touched, one wonders to what extent the requirement for additional borrowing is related to the Government's policy of privatisation. It appears that there may be continuing investment in yards that are to be sold, which will require to be funded. More specifically, there will be the follow-on consequences of the Scott Lithgow deal.
As some hon. Members may recall, I was critical of the deal when it was struck — not because I objected in principle to the yard moving from British Shipbuilders to the private sector, but because of the terms in which it was taking place, namely, that the price paid was extremely low and the guarantees remaining on the public purse appeared to be open-ended and rather high. I hope that


when the Minister replies he will say what commitment will have to be met by the public sector on the Scott Lithgow yard. Some of us think that it might be a substantial sum.
I shall confine myself to the Scottish yards. The bids that have apparently come in for Yarrow and Hall Russell are clearly different from what was envisaged. The joint management buyer fell through. While I appreciate that the Minister is not in a position to disclose the details, can he reiterate a previous assurance that the Hall Russell yard will be sold as a shipyard? He knows the strength of feeling in the city about that. It would be welcome if the Minister could say tonight, first, whether any offer he has on the table is likely to prove acceptable and, secondly, if it is that he will ensure that as far as the Government can reasonably guarantee the shipyard will continue to be a shipyard and will not be sold for any other purpose. It has, in private and public ownership, been a successful and profitable yard and it is the wish of the local community that it should continue to be so.
I do not want to labour the point, but it is worth reiterating that people who do not know the local economy in Aberdeen tend to think we are happy with the fact the we have oil. We are, and it has given us a level of unemployment which other areas might envy, although 10 years ago any other part of the country would have regarded 7·5 per cent. unemployment as a disaster.
Nevertheless, the traditional industries in Aberdeen are being squeezed out by the oil industry. If this shipyard went as a yard, that would be seen as a psychological and practical blow to traditional industries in the locality, industries which the community is anxious to sustain, especially as the yard has been efficient, successful, flexible and profitable. It would be most regrettable if the net effect of privatisation was to prevent that from continuing.
We welcome the fact that some additional orders have gone to British Shipbuilders. To the extent that the Government can make any positive statements to the effect that they feel — we can differ if we consider that they are not right—that British Shipbuilders is coming out of the doldrums, if that turn out to be true, it will be welcomed. Many of us requires much more to happen before we shall be convinced that progess is really taking place.
Some questions remain unanswered about the increase. For example, is it simply and extension of what has been going on? Is it real money going into the shipbuilding industry to strengthen it, or is it transitional money which will benefit private owners who take over some of the yards? We have seen to much from the Government of public money going in to prop up assets which have subsequently been sold off at a low price to benefit, one can crudely say, friends of the Government, people who do not give a proportionate return to the taxpayer.
One is still left with a feeling of concern lest some of the deals which are still outstanding and which British Shipbuilders will have to pick up may prove expensive. That is part of the reason, one suspects, why the Government are having to increase the limit.
Those who wish to see British Shipbuilders restructured, to see the industry successful and to see the Government pursuing a proper shipping and order placement policy welcome any move that is likely to make for improvements in that direction. I hope that the Minister realises that simply presenting an order — which, of

course, we shall not oppose—does not mean that we are convinced that the Government's policy is on the right track.
Despite the general and blatant political points that I have made, I hope that my questions about Scott Lithgow and Hall Russell will be answered and that assurances will be given. That will be welcomed by many people outside the House, who will be concerned if the Minister is unable to give those assurances tonight.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I shall not delay the House unduly at this late hour. However, this instrument provides an opportunity for hon. Members with constituency interests in the shipbuilding industry to make representations to the Government. In particular, it is an opportunity for those of us who wish to see the industry preserved to question the Government on their overall approach and on recent developments in the industry. I shall not go over old ground. There are some new points about which I wish to probe the Minister.
In the past the Opposition have not opposed orders designed to raise the limit on British Shipbuilders' borrowing powers, and we shall not oppose this one. However, with privatisation looming for the greater part of what is left of the industry—the warship yards—we have a duty to seek from the Government details of what the extra money is required for and how they intend to recoup the taxpayers' money that is being spent or the warship yards that are due for privatisation.
Prior to nationalisation, a major cause of the difficulties in the industry was lack of investment because the private sector preferred to take its profit rather than reinvest. It would be ironic if the end result of nationalisation was that public funds had been used to make up for the failure of the private sector to invest, only to have the recapitalised industry handed back to the private sector on advantageous terms.
Everything depends upon the actual terms of privatisation. I understand why the Minister has to be reticent on the specific details at the moment, but the Government have a duty to safeguard public investment in the shipbuilding industry and to make sure that the nation gets a proper return on its investment.
I was disappointed that the Minister did not refer specifically to the increase in borrowing limits. The order does not deal with the difficulty that shipyard workers who will be made redundant after December 1986 will face These will be the workers who have stood by the industry and have not taken the opportunity to sell their jobs. They will be forced out of the industry by closure, without full severance payments if that closure comes after the end of 1986.
It would be wrong for the Government to leave matters as they stand, because a section of the shipbuilding community will be treated unfairly. The injustice will be made worse because workers deprived of accumulated entitlements will have no means of preventing their redundancy. Indeed, these will be the workers who are now sticking by a low-paid industry and doing everything possible to save their jobs. I do not think that the House would want to treat shipyard workers in such a shoddy way.
If there are further redundancies after 1986 as a result of a downturn in naval orders by the Ministry of Defence, I think that it would be the will of the House—certainly


it would be the will of my right hon. and hon. Friends — that arrangements should be made to ensure that shipbuilding workers in that unfortunate position received their redundancy entitlement not just under the state scheme but also under the British Shipbuilders' scheme. It would be unfair if they were left without that sort of protection. The Minister should address himself to that eventuality and give an assurance that in those special circumstances the Government will be willing to act. That would be helpful.
Will the Minister also address himself to the status of warship yards that have work but are not privatised by March 1986? This is of considerable concern to the industry. I mentioned in the last debate that the Minister of State had said that the warship yards were to be sold or closed. Is that still the Government's approach, or are they saying that these yards will be alienated from public ownership on a subsidised basis, or will they be kept in the public sector in a disadvantaged way until the work runs out, or are the Government still considering — as was mooted last summer by the Secretary of State — the launch of a private limited company to accommodate yards for which there has been no other private bid by the time the privatisation date that they have set approaches?
Yards such as Cammell Laird and Swan Hunter have a substantial tradition of doing merchant work. Swan Hunter in particular has built up a record of producing specialised merchant vessels, and it is still in that market. If it is asked to go over to warship building as its only function, it will lose a source of work for its men and a source of revenue for the privatised company. Does the Minister see any future for Swan Hunter in merchant work, especially for specialised vessels, where European yards can still be competitive? I have in mind the launch of the cable laying vessel, which has only recently left the Tyne. That is the sort of work that Swan Hunter will want to compete for, and it should have the opportunity to do so.
If the Government adopt the method of subsidising merchant shipbuilding for which I think they will opt, which will mean giving a cash subsidy to British Shipbuilders and saying, in effect, "This is your subsidy for merchant shipbuilding", it will be for BS to decide how that money will be spent across its merchant yards. Mixed yards such as Swans, which are supposed to be treated like warship yards, would be cut off from effective subsidy for merchant orders. As we have said repeatedly in these debates, there is no free market in merchant shipbuilding. Every merchant shipbuilding economy needs state support. It is the position of yards such as Swans that I wish to probe.
If the Government intend to adopt a different approach in subsidising British merchant shipbuilding — for example, one that takes into account the social consequences of unemployment, the work force that is employed or the pragmatic order-to-order subsidy rather than a fixed sum—it will be helpful if the Minister will say so now, so that the position is clear for all those who have responsibility for future planning in the industry.
Swan Hunter has been promised a type 23 frigate order. I ask the Minister to give an assurance that it will not be as long delayed as the orders for type 22s. The Type 23 order will be crucial for the employment programme at Swans. If the yard does not receive the order in time, there are bound to be further redundancies on Tyneside. I shall

not rehearse all the arguments about why the region should not have to bear the present burden of unemployment. I am sure that the Minister is aware that it is a region of very high unemployment and that it does not want to carry the additional burden of further shipbuilding redundancies.
The Minister has whetted my appetite and that of my hon. Friends by talking about the new aid regime to meet competition from the far east. It is something that is giving him new hope. It seems that it will deal at last with import penetration and I understand why the Minister cannot reveal to much at this stage. If what he has outlined comes to pass, it will be welcome. I only hope that it will not come too late for the industry and that it will provide an effective barrier to unfair overseas competition, especially from the far east. I hope also that it will prevent the annihilation of our merchant shipbuilding markets as a result of dramatic import penetration. I wish the Minister well in his endeavours if he is genuinely taking that path.

Mr. Butcher: First, I thank the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) for his endorsement of the objectives behind this measure. I understand that there is unanimity in the House that we should proceed in the way that has been outlined. I can assure him that as all the recent shipbuilding orders are covered, in the main, by the intervention fund, they have taken that subsidy forward automatically into next year's build programme. We would not have next year's build programme if there had not been the intervention fund support which Mr. Graham Day has used so imaginatively in scouring the world for orders.
I shall restate briefly what we are about tonight. The order raises the borrowing limit of British Shipbuilders by £100 million to £1,200 million. It gives BS the authority to borrow from the Government or elsewhere up to that limit. In practice, the funding involved is primarily public dividend capital plus certain Government loans associated with the modernisation of Vickers and temporary borrowing from either the national loans fund or the market. It does not apply to payments under the intervention fund. The proceeds from the sale of the warship yards will be allowed for, but we are looking still at net EFL, even allowing for the proceeds of sale. Obviously, I shall not disclose the exact figure tonight, as it could prejudice what we are looking at, but it will be about £36 million.
We are introducing the order now because, by the end of March, British Shipbuilders will be approaching its current limit of £1,100 million. As I have explained, we expect receipts from the sale of warship yards in 1985–86 to hold net borrowing in that year to the March 1985 level. But the timing of the receipts will be critical, and that will be another factor in relation to Scott Lithgow. Clearly, it is essential that we make provision now for borrowing which may arise in the early part of the year if sales receipts do not, as is likely, match expenditure on a month-by-month basis. Moreover, we still await the settlement of the completion of accounts relating to the sale of Scott Lithgow. It is clearly prudent to make provision for any costs which may arise.
In my opening remarks, I told the House of both the radical restructuring which British Shipbuilders has undergone since we last introduced a borrowing limit order, and the recent new order success that this has brought. After virtually a year without new orders, during


which we have had a number of sombre and depressing debates, it gives the House pleasure to be able to participate in a debate on the first successes of the revamped British Shipbuilders.
As ever, many questions have been asked. In the financial year 1984–85, British Shipbuilders expects to spend more than £100 million on capital expenditure, of which £51 million is for the modernisation of Vickers. The balance will go to the other yards. The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West asked about future work projections. In 1985–86, British Shipbuilders plans to spend about £130 million, of which £60 million will be on the modernisation of Vickers. In both years, capital expenditure on merchant shipbuilding will be running at about £20 million.
The hon. Gentleman also asked for a breakdown of the £1·23-ish billion which we are now contemplating. I have answered that question in great detail in past debates, and I therefore accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation to let him have the updated detail in writing.
At the time Scott Lithgow was sold in March 1984, the financial reconstruction of the company, which comprised part of the deal, was done on the basis of provisional and unaudited accounts. This was documented in British Shipbuilders' annual accounts for 1983–84 and fully explained in evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in July 1984 by both British Shipbuilders and its auditors.
Finalising the completion accounts has proved a complex business. The auditors of British Shipbuilders and of Trafalgar House are still deeply involved in negotiations. I understand that the principal item at issue is the provision made in March 1984 for the costs of completing the BP rig. Under the terms of the deal, British Shipbuilders retained responsibility for this rig. In the event it took far longer to complete than originally estimated. British Shipbuilders and Trafalgar House are therefore negotiating over who should bear the extra completion costs involved, and over a number of other issues relating to the accounts.
I must stress, however, that any costs which may arise from the BP rig will not bear upon the original decision to sell the yard. It was always clear that the BP rig was so far advanced that it only made sense to complete it—and the costs would thus have arisen whether the yard was retained in British Shipbuilders, closed or sold.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) displayed a laudable concern for yards outside his constituency and referred to the implications for Scott Lithgow. Having spent some time last week in that yard, I detect a new atmosphere there. The workers are committed. My only regret, from having walked around a couple of the car parks, is that it appeared that about 35 per cent. of the cars parked there were of foreign manufacture. Although we had a rather whimsical exchange with the shop stewards on that particular morning, they could perhaps have pressed me to a deal if they eliminated that form of purchasing to allow for a totally British purchasing policy on behalf of British ship owners. That was a deal I could not deliver, but it was an interesting exchange.
On the question of Swan Hunter and merchant work, there is nothing now, of course, to prevent Swan Hunter's from seeking merchant work while it is in the corporation. What happens afterwards will depend on the new owners. As the chairman of British Shipbuilders has pointed out, Swan Hunter lost a lot of money on the Atlantic Conveyor

in spite of the subsidy that the ship received. I noted very carefully what the hon. Gentleman said about the type 23 frigate; and I will, of course, communicate his concern to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence so that the invitation to that yard to be up to scratch to justify the placing of that order in those circumstances is complied with.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West asked a question about the 200,000 compensated consolidated gross registered tonnes applying only to yards not to be privatised. The 200,000 compensated gross registered tonnes target is for merchant orders. None of the yards to be privatised has a merchant workload at present, nor do any have any immediate prospects of merchant work. I hope that the hon. Gentleman finds some reassurance in that.
We were then asked to clarify our position with regard to negotiations with the Commission. I am afraid that I have to avoid the invitation of the hon. Gentleman to be more specific. He has been in business himself and he knows that one does not go into a negotiating position declaring one's bottom line to those with whom one is negotiating. However, I can say, if he wishes me to use a different adjective, that we are looking for a substantial increase in the current rate of intervention fund, not least because, as hon. Gentlemen have noted, we are concerned to see that we match the far east competition.
On the breakdown of the subsidy from the Government, I did undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman and to give an update on what is now probably going to be in excess of the £1,200 million support figure. British Shipbuilders' workload next year, as I said earlier, will consist almost entirely of the orders they have got this year under IF support.
On the question raised on privatisation, we hope and believe that we shall be able to sell all the warship yards. We have not even anticipated that it will not prove possible to do so. We have not, therefore, considered what would happen to the yards if they were not sold.
I have not forgotten the hon. Gentleman's question about Hall Russell. It is our hope and wish, as we have said before, that it will be sold as a shipbuilder, but that depends on the bidders that come in for that particular order. We have given the strongest hint possible that we too would regret the lapsing of that sort of capability on that site.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I would like to press the point I raised about the position of shipyard workers in warship yards who are made redundant after the expiry of the British Shipbuilders redundancy scheme at the end of 1986 through no fault of their own but because, for example, to give the most obvious reason, of a further downturn in the ordering requirements of the Ministry of Defence and there not being enough work to fill all the yards. If those workers who have stuck by the industry were to be made compulsorily redundant through no fault of their own, under present circumstances they would be disadvantaged. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could at least give an assurance that the Government, in those specific circumstances, would look sympathetically at the position of the men and the possibility of compensating them for the substantial loss, amounting in some cases to 50 per cent. or even 60 per cent., of their redundancy entitlement.

Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman may recall that we had a long debate on this in the past. I think we made it


very clear that after the expiry of the shipbuilding redundancy scheme, as debated and approved in the House recently, it would be up to the successor privatised yard, if it was privatised by then, to have a follow-on scheme. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that in similar circumstances in the past, when yards have passed from the public to the private sector, there has been a compensatory element of payment to the workers who have passed into the private sector. Negotiations have taken place, and some have been more generous than others. Thus the "rights" to the levels of redundancy payment enjoyed in British Shipbuilders are taken account of, but are no longer pertinent once the company has gone into the private sector.
I should like to send the hon. Gentleman details of four such deals done in the past. He may care to take his lead from them. He may rest assured that there is not a chasm, in terms of support, into which people fall. A number of compromises have been available.
I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
I thank the Minister for the further information. It will not come as any surprise to him that it is disconcerting to see so little capital investment going into the civilian side. That only confirms our worst forebodings.
We welcome the fact that the Minister said that the compensatory gross registered tonnage was indeed for those yards. However, one year forward is not a great deal of forward order coverage, given that the Government have plunged the industry into a further period of great uncertainty.
The Minister then let slip a figure of £36 million. Is that figure for the proceeds that he expects from the immediate sales of the warship yards that are put on the market? Did he say that the proceeds from the sales would be credited to BS, and would thus benefit BS in addition to the increase in the borrowing facility that he is making available? If that is the case, we shall not press him as far

as the Commission is concerned. However, we shall look very carefully at whatever deal he eventually comes to the House with, and we shall want to be assured that it is as substantial as he claims.
With great respect to the Minister, the Secretary of State and to the officials, it is about time that they gave some thought to the situation that they are putting themselves in of utter distress sales. It is not good enough to say that they have not thought about what they will do if they cannot flog off those yards. Will they give them away, pay people to take them, or close them? If Ministers cannot answer that question tonight, it is time that they had a clear-cut policy saying that those yards that are completing their orders will be left within BS, and that their managements will fall within its area of competence, and that they will be allowed to complete them.
We should like the Minister to come back to the House on those points. We cannot welcome the Government's policy towards the industry, and oppose that policy in every conceivable respect. But we welcome the order in that it enables the industry to continue, albeit in an unsatisfactory state and towards an uncertain future. In the circumstances, there is nothing that we can do but accept the order and to hope that the industry will have a better future than the Government seem to envisage. We shall follow the industry's progress, and the progress of the sales over the next months with great trepidation, and I fear that we shall be debating these issues before long as the Government's auction proceeds. But for the moment we shall let the order go through without a Division.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft British Shipbuilders Borrowing Powers (Increase of Limit) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, in respect of the Companies Bill [Lords], the Company Securities (Insider Dealings) Bill [Lords], and the Business Names Bill [Lords], Notices of Amendments, new Clauses, and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Independent Schools (Local Authority Facilities)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Mr. Michael Knowles: My hon. Friends and I wish to bring to the attention of the House and the Government an injustice. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science has agreed that my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) should be permitted to speak during the debate. The matter is causing deep anxiety throughout the county. We are using our position as Members of Parliament in the most classical way possible, that is, to appeal for justice for our constituents. We want to know what the Government propose to do to defend children in Nottinghamshire against the petty, spiteful and cruel actions of the Labour party—the majority party—on Nottinghamshire county council and its education committee. The decisions of that committee have rightly received both local and national publicity.
The committee decided that no child who attends a school in the independent sector should make use of the council's facilities. That applies to school milk, swimming pools, swimming lessons, playing fields, music colleges, the county orchestra and band, the drama workshops, the summer residential workshop and even the Saturday morning junior schools at two colleges of further education. The decision was supposedly made on principles.
The Nottingham Evening Post has been making a powerful case. It states:
Education Committee chairman Fred Riddell made it quite clear: 'Private schools are a divisive factor in education and give special privileges and unfair starts entirely unconnected with merit or need,' he said.
The Post respects entirely the right of people to hold that view but we reckon the policy itself is cruel and misguided because it hits politically innocent children and that's not a fair fight.
That sums up the feeling of the people of Nottinghamshire. It has certainly been reflected in the letters that I have received on the subject, the majority of which have come not from those directly affected, but from people who are struck by the unfairness and injustice of the decision.
Because of the public outrage in Nottingham the education committee has had to water down its policy a little, for example, for music. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham. South wishes to speak about that. One set of parents went to court and obtained an injunction stopping the adoption of a recommendation that affects 30 pupils. That is a minor number compared with the many pupils still affected.
The supposition that all parents of pupils who attend independent schools are wealthy is nonsense. Even if that were true, the policy is morally repugnant. Parents who can pay for their children's education pay for the other facilities through their rates and taxes, and pay for that education twice. The policy proves that policies based on hatred and envy are bound to have vindictive and callous consequences.
I shall give an example that will make that point clear and give the lie to the so-called justification that the decision is based on principle. Sutherland House is a

privately owned non-profit making school for 28 autistic children. The fees are paid for by three education authorities, which make joint use of the school, because they do not make separate provision. That policy is correct. Nottingham county council pays for the fees of 18 of those children.
Even those handicapped children whose fees are paid for by the education committee are being denied access to swimming pools. What kind of principle is that? It declares war not only on children but even on handicapped children. Some friends of mine have an autistic child, and I know the damage that can be done, simply because of the nature of the handicap, by someone showing coldness and indifference. It is difficult enough to bring those children out, and the damage that could be caused to them by such a decision is outrageous. It makes my blood boil.
The people of Nottingham look to Her Majesty's Government to protect them against such petty, tyrannical decisions. The real question to the Minister is: does he have any power? If it is not made clear that Parliament will not tolerate such actions, I predict that they will spread to every Left-wing Labour education authority in the country. If people think that I exaggerate, they should consider what has happened with local government finance. They cannot say that this will be confined to one county. We have a duty to make it clear that some actions plumb the depths of moral turpitude and cannot be tolerated. This is one such action. We ask for — we demand — action against those who declare war on children.

Mr. Jim Lester: I support my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles), for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) and for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) in this debate. There are two elements of principle involved. First and foremost, all the parents of the children in Nottinghamshire contribute through their rates to the services and facilities which are enjoyed, only in a reasonable way, by the private sector. Children in the state sector have not been denied the use of playing fields, swimming pools and other facilities when they required them. Schools which do not have such facilities have been able to use others by the use of sensible timetables. I was a member of the education authority that was responsible for introducing joint-use facilities. Our philosophy was that it was an intelligent use of resources to develop the community use of capital equipment in our comprehensive schools to the maximum possible. That means that they must be used by all the children who are not in the public sector, because they have been provided way in excess of the minimum demands of the state sector.
I wish to make a special case for music. Of all the spiritual and developing sciences, music is the one that knows no class barriers. The ability to play musical instruments is not restricted, and cannot be defined within a rigid state sector. It is incredible to think that young musicians, from whatever background, and from all sectors of education in Nottinghamshire, cannot come together and continue to provide what has been the jewel in the crown of Nottinghamshire education—the county youth orchestra, which has given untold pleasure to many people who have attended its concerts in the county and in the Royal Albert Hall. Who knows when one listens to an orchestra what the background is of the child who plays the flute, the oboe or the violin, and who cares anyway?


What matters is that those young people play together and excel in the presentation of the finest and most sophisticated art in our culture. The idea of this narrow, mean, arbitrary decision that children cannot come together on the basis of their ability to combine and play the great works of music defies description.
There should be—if there is not, the Minister should tell us—a legal way for the parents or the Government to define the use of facilities which are paid for through the rates and which, therefore, should be available to all the children of Nottinghamshire, based purely on their talents, not on the school which they happen to attend.

Mr. Andy Stewart: I shall be brief, since my hon. Friends have already highlighted this nasty, vindictive Socialism against innocent children in Nottinghamshire whose parents have exercised their democratic rights and have chosen to educate their children outside the maintained sector.
Parents of children at independent schools pay their rates and taxes like anyone else. They pay, as residents of Nottinghamshire, for the maintained schools, the libraries, swimming pools, parks, sports fields and everything else, as much as other ratepayers. It is petty, stupid and a mistaken class hatred to deny children who attend independent schools access to facilities within the state schools. Let us not forget that the independent schools make their facilities available to children from state schools, often at no charge.
The Labour-controlled council is saying, "We can play in your garden, but you cannot play in ours." The facilities which were withdrawn were available to all—I think of free milk—or on the basis of talent for a given course like those provided by music schools. The results from those schools have given us the internationally renowned Nottinghamshire county concert band and the Nottinghamshire county youth orchestra which have given pleasure to thousands of people at home and abroad.
If the Socialists are out to destroy that fine record, how far do they intend to take their vendetta? Will the children next be denied access to libraries and other public facilities maintained by ratepayers and taxpayers just because their parents choose to pay for their schooling personally?
The implementation of this callous policy against children will save only £1,800 according to the figures supplied by the county treasurer. Does the Labour-controlled council not recognise that the parents of a child being educated in the private sector have already contributed on average over £1,000 each to the state maintained sector? In Nottinghamshire, totals £6 million.
A divisive policy against children to save £1,800 must rank as the lowest form of Socialism around. It has already sunk to a pretty low depth in other directions. However, the electors of Nottinghamshire will have the opportunity in May to reject this Labour-controlled council and all that it stands for.
A final thought. How would the Labour council cope if all the parents of children at independent schools exercised their democratic right in the other direction, and sent their children to maintained schools? Let the finance officers work that one out.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: On 15 January I tabled a question in answer to which the Minister told me that the Government deplored such discrimination and that under existing legislation they would take action if they were satisfied that any authority was acting "unreasonably" in the sense that that word had been interpreted in the courts. No one can doubt that judgment in respect of Nottingham, in view of my hon. Friends' remarks and of the mass of representations made to the Minister on which I hope that he will comment.
I had cause previously to speak in somewhat uncomplimentary terms of the chairman of the Nottinghamshire education committee. On this occasion, I think that Councillor Frederick Riddell has surpassed himself. Rich as our language is, I can find no adjective to describe him that will be allowed under our rigid parliamentary language rules. So politically motivated is the decision that the councillor, not the director of education, has signed the reports placed before the county council.
The new rules are a catalogue of vindictive acts against children whose only crime appears to be that their parents have decided, after paying all their dues and taxes that they dare, with what is left, send their children to a private school. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) pointed out, not all parents pay. The daughter of one of my constituents has a free place at a Nottingham school. That girl is severely disabled, and her one great joy is music. The degree of caring of that Labour authority is such that she was to be thrown out of the orchestra. The authority has now relented.
It is still true that private pupils who are not currently members of the music schools will not now be permitted to apply to those schools. They will be precluded also from applying for auditions for the county orchestra or concert band. The parents are prepared to commence proceedings, if they must, against the Nottinghamshire county council on the basis that, while there is no duty on the county council to provide music schools, if it does, the council must exercise that duty reasonably. No reasonable county council reasonably advised could take the decision that Nottinghamshire county council has taken.
There are 30 privately educated pupils in the 762 playing places in the four schools of music; 36 privately educated pupils in the 310 special tuition places; three private school pupils among the 82 members of the orchestra, and five private school pupils among the 75 members of the band. All those places are won on excellence and audition.
The parents of those private school students would have grounds for calling for a judicial review on the administrative decision. I put it to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that parents should not have to do this themselves—we are here to plead for them and to defend their rights.
This action towards music is not the only crass act of this Labour council. A school in my constituency has used the adjacent playing field for 50 years. The school currently pays £4 an hour for the use of that pitch. A school in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East pays £1,000 a year for the use of a swimming pool. The county council has said that it will save £1,800 by its decision on music, but it has forgotten to tell the ratepayers of the fees that it will lose from the


playing fields and the swimming pools. Those losses will swamp the gain. It is a paltry gain for so nasty a policy. As for the policy maker, they did not call him "Flogger Fred" as a schoolmaster for nothing.
My colleagues are concerned about the knock-on effect in other counties. We believe that democracy does not imply the dismissal of minority views and interests. If the local authority cannot temper its dogma with some common sense, it is the duty of this place to do it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) obtained this Adjournment debate, because it gives me the opportunity to acknowledge and pay tribute to his efforts in representing the interests of his constituents. I have noted the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, East, for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) and for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) about the actions of the Nottinghamshire local education authority in withdrawing a range of local authority facilities and provisions from pupils at independent schools. I accept that they, like many of their constituents, feel strongly about the matters they have raised. I shall do my best to respond as far as possible to the various aspects of this case in the time I have available.
I hear and take very seriously the strong outpourings of indignation and indeed outrage which have been expressed to me, not only here tonight by my hon. Friends but in letters from parents of children at independent schools in Nottingham. Those parents have expressed their annoyance and indignation to me in the strongest of terms. In response to my hon. Friends and to parents, this Adjournment debate provides me with the opportunity of explaining how matters stand.
Before I do that, however, I think that this would be an appropriate point for me to explain the Secretary of State's role in matters of this sort. Essentially it is to examine them, once they have been brought to his attention by means of a complaint or in some other way, to see whether they call for any action on his part under powers conferred on him by sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944. Those sections relate to the exercise of powers and duties conferred by or under the Education Acts. The first relates to situations where an LEA may have exercised its powers or duties unreasonably; the second to matters where the LEA may actually be in default.
When dealing with such matters, we must begin by identifying the statutory powers or duties which are involved. In the present case, for example, we need to define the powers or duties under which Nottinghamshire has been providing the services now being withdrawn or under threat of withdrawal. That in itself is not straightforward with regard to the matters raised by my hon. Friend, because we are dealing not with one service provided under one power or duty, but a variety of different services provided under a number of different statutory provisions. Secondly, it is for the Secretary of State to establish whether his powers under section 68 or section 99 or both are relevant. Section 99 would apply where an LEA was in breach of its Education Act duties, whereas section 68 relates to the unreasonable performance of an authority's duties under the Act or the unreasonable exercise of powers under the Education Act.

It may be helpful if I clarify one point here. The Secretary of State's powers enable him to investigate on "unreasonableness" grounds whether the action of the authority involves a decision to go ahead and do something new, or to stop something being done, or to vary the manner in which it is being done.
During the debate tonight, my hon. Friends have left me in no doubt that they think the Nottinghamshire authority has acted unreasonably. But here we are dealing not with what the ordinary man or woman would call unreasonable, but with what the law regards as unreasonable, since "unreasonableness" is a legal term of art. To fall within this expression it must be conduct which no sensible authority acting with due appreciation of its responsibilities would have decided to adopt.
Having established those matters, my right hon. Friend has then to investigate the authority's actions. It is this point which we have now reached, and officials are seeking from the authority a detailed account of the decisions it has reached and the reasons which lay behind those decisions.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am sure that I am not alone when I say that my colleagues and I are being drowned by the legal jargon. I appreciate the difficulty, but if from 9 o'clock until 5 o'clock Monday to Friday a swimming pool is reserved by the LEA and during a period when the local authority is not using the pool a private school rents and pays for the time, would it not seem to be unreasonable to refuse to rent the swimming pool to it?

Mr. Dunn: That is why my Department is conducting investigations with the authority. Once the complaints procedure has been started—which, as my hon. Friend knows, it has—it is a matter for investigation. I shall return to that point later in another context.
As soon as my right hon. Friend has received and considered the comments and documentary evidence that we have requested from Nottingham and has satisfied himself that he has sufficient information to enable him to form a view about the legality of Nottinghamshire's actions, he will conclude whether there is any evidence of unreasonable action or of a breach of statutory duties.
My hon. Friends referred to the activities about which their constituents have complained to them. Several activities are involved—school orchestras, school milk, in-service training, swimming pools and playing fields, drama workshops, Saturday classes and the withdrawal of certain facilities provided by public libraries to teachers from independent schools. On the latter point, since the transfer of functions to the Office of Arts and Libraries, this matter is for that Department and not for the Department of Education and Science. The Office of Arts and Libraries is pursuing that point separately.
My hon. Friends tonight have left me in no doubt that in their view this catalogue adds up to a policy decision on the part of the Nottinghamshire authority that has been taken for purely political reasons. I hope that my hon. Friends will understand, however, if at this stage I offer no particular view on the merits of the case that they have argued. That I do not do so is a measure of how seriously my right hon. Friend and I are treating the matters about which they complain. We are vigorously considering whether Nottinghamshire education authority has acted unreasonably in the exercise of its powers and duties, or is in default of the duties laid on it by the Education Acts.


To that end, as I have already explained, we are seeking answers from the authority to enable my right hon. Friend to reach conclusions on that matter, as before he can do so he must satisfy himself that he has sufficient information to enable him to do so. However, my right hon. Friend is exercising powers given to him by the 1944 Act and, until such time as he is able to reach his conclusion, he is in a quasi-judicial role.
However, I fully recognise that the children and the parents of children at independent schools have had to face three months of uncertainty as to whether the various

provisions that they have enjoyed in the past will continue to be available to them in the future. We are therefore treating these complaints as a matter of priority, and my meeting with Nottinghamshire Members later this week will no doubt be of further help in clarifying the issues involved. The Department and I will do our utmost to ensure that the parents and children have the Secretary of State's conclusions as soon as we possibly can.
It would be remiss of me if, in conclusion, I did not thank my hon. Friends for bringing this problem to the attention of the House in a robust fashion.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Two o'clock.